Site Map

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

Chapter 31 Fr Clemens*99

Introduction

31.1 Fr Clemens was born in the 1960s and ordained in the 1980s. He has served in a number of parishes in the Dublin Archdiocese but is currently voluntarily standing aside from ministry. He has had two allegations of inappropriate behaviour and sexual abuse made against him, the first arising within months of his ordination. The investigation into the second allegation is ongoing.  

First allegations  

31.2 In early December 1988, five sets of parents complained to the parish priest of the parish where Fr Clemens was serving. He had taken charge of the altar boys on his arrival in the parish a short time earlier. On one occasion during altar boy practice, some of the boys had been misbehaving and Fr Clemens allegedly made them lower their trousers as a form of punishment. There was no touching involved.  

31.3 One of the altar boys immediately told his parents of the incident. He claimed that he had been kept in the vestry for approximately 40 minutes but had refused to remove his trousers. Fr Clemens allegedly released him only when he showed him the top of his underwear. This boy‟s parents immediately reported this to the parish priest who told them that there must be some mistake and made an appointment for them to return that evening. In the interim, these parents called to the parents of the other altar boys involved in the incident. One altar boy denied it had happened to him and it was not until a Garda investigation began in 2002 that he admitted he had been subjected to this treatment. In 2002, he alleged that this treatment had occurred at least 20 times over a two-year period; this, however, is unlikely to be accurate as the priest was in the parish for only a few months. This same former altar boy also alleged in 2002 that on one occasion he was asked by Fr Clemens to remove his underwear but he had refused. A third altar boy said at the time (December 1988) that he had been asked to remove his trousers. The parents of these three altar boys, and the parents of two others, went back to see the parish priest later that evening as arranged.

31.4 In the interim, it appears that Fr Clemens had met his parish priest and denied the allegations. However, when the allegations were put to him again in the presence of one of the families, he admitted to asking their son to remove his trousers, saying it was punishment for misbehaviour. The boy‟s father threatened to go to the media and the Gardaí but was dissuaded by the parish priest who promised to deal with the issue and to inform the Archbishop.

31.5 Bishop Murray was immediately informed and in turn contacted Archbishop‟s House in December 1988. The allegations were discussed at a meeting of the auxiliary bishops where it was decided that Fr Clemens would be given alternative accommodation in a non-parochial setting. He was removed from the parish and went to live with another priest. It would appear that a considerable number of parishioners were aware of the incidents and the parents of the boys involved were adamant that Fr Clemens should have no post in the parish.

31.6 Fr Clemens attended a psychiatrist and admitted that the punishment was of an impulsive nature and possibly related to voyeuristic impulses. The psychiatrist concluded that the incident could best be regarded as “an impulsive indiscretion which did not involve any harm to the boys in question and probably reflects a certain vulnerability in [Fr Clemens‟s] personality”. The doctor did not regard the incident as a serious problem and concluded it was very unlikely to recur. Continued outpatient care was arranged until September 1989. In December 1989 the psychiatrist recommended an appointment in a parochial setting as soon as possible.

31.7 Approximately one week after the first reported incident, the parish priest met some of the parents to update them on developments and offer their son some counselling but this was refused.

31.8 Fr Clemens was appointed curate in a parish at the other end of the diocese in January 1989. The parish priest of this parish was informed about the allegations but it was decided not to inform the other priests. Concerns were later raised in the new parish by teachers at the local primary school because they had heard rumours about the incident in the previous parish.

Bishop O‟Mahony met the teachers. He told the Commission that he had informed the teachers of the results of the psychiatric assessment and that Fr Clemens was being monitored. He told them that “within the limits of fallibility and having taken expert opinion there was no one at risk”.

31.9 When the Archdiocese began to report cases to the Gardaí in 1996, Fr Clemens was referred to the Granada Institute for a second review. (He was not named in the first list given to the Gardaí in November 1995 – see Chapter 5.) He had two meetings with a psychologist who issued a favourable final review in February 1998. This stated that Fr Clemens showed no evidence of maladjustment and presented as emotionally stable with a sexual orientation to adult women. There was no indication of an erotic interest towards children and no evidence of posing any risk to children.

31.10 In 2001, Fr Clemens was appointed to another parish as part of the normal process of appointments.

31.11 In May 2002, the parish priest in his first parish received a solicitor‟s letter on behalf of the altar boy who had claimed he was kept in the vestry for 40 minutes. The former altar boy was now an adult and he threatened civil proceedings for false imprisonment. He also said he intended to contact the Gardaí.

31.12 This young man‟s parents made a formal complaint to Gardaí in May 2002. The Gardaí carried out a thorough investigation. They took statements from the altar boys involved in the complaint, their parents and others who had served as altar boys in 1988. They also took statements from Fr Clemens, the parish priest and Bishop Murray. There were some conflicting statements given, some saying there was also smacking involved, others saying they had heard rumours but had never witnessed anything. Fr Clemens told Gardaí that, at the time of the incident, one boy had his underwear showing and he told him to tuck his shirt in; he did ask to see another boy‟s underwear. He denied all other aspects of the allegation.

31.13 The Gardaí contacted the chancellor, Monsignor Dolan in August 2002 and told him that there were four allegations against this priest. They wanted a statement from Archbishop Connell as to why this priest was transferred in 1988 and information on what treatment he had received. The Gardaí said they did not think there was much in the allegation but wanted further information before sending the file to the DPP. Monsignor Dolan provided them with a statement documenting events surrounding the allegations.  

31.14 In November 2002, Monsignor Dolan contacted Granada seeking clarification as to whether Fr Clemens‟s behaviour could come under the definition of child sexual abuse as outlined in the Framework Document. Granada said it would not. An advisory panel meeting in October 2003 noted this firm view and agreed with Granada. The panel recommended that no action be taken until the Garda investigation had been concluded. The DPP decided not to prosecute.  

Second allegation  

31.15 A new allegation was made in April 2005. It related to an incident which had allegedly occurred in 1988/89 when the complainant was about five years old and Fr Clemens was in the parish where the first complaints were made. The complainant alleged that this priest had fondled him. The Archdiocese followed the Framework Document procedures. The complainant was offered counselling. Fr Clemens has stepped aside from ministry and denies the allegation. The matter had not been resolved by early 2007.  

The Commission’s assessment  

31.16 The Archdiocese dealt quite well with the allegations relating to the altar boys. There is no doubt that Fr Clemens‟s behaviour was inappropriate but it was not clear that it involved child sexual abuse. The second allegation does involve child sexual abuse and it is being dealt with in accordance with the agreed procedures.

Chapter 32 Fr Dominic Savio Boland OFM Cap  

32.1 Fr John Boland is a member of the Capuchin Franciscan Order. His religious name is Fr Dominic Savio Boland. He was born in 1930 and ordained in 1966. He worked in the Archdiocese of Dublin as a teacher, school chaplain and hospital chaplain. He is now living in one of the order‟s houses in Ireland with restrictions on his activities and ministry.  

32.2 Fr Boland is a convicted serial child sexual abuser. He has mainly abused males, but there are also allegations in relation to females. He was convicted of nine counts of indecent assault in 2001 against one victim and he received a 12-month suspended sentence. The Commission is aware of allegations or suspicions in respect of nine named children. Some of these children also reported that they were aware that Fr Boland had abused other children. He has admitted to abusing about 20 children.  

First complaint  

32.3 The first allegation of child sexual abuse against Fr Boland for which the Commission has documentary evidence was made in December 1989 to the order. A novice in the order alleged that he had been abused when he was about 13 years old; this was four years before he joined the order. The abuse involved fondling. The head of the order decided to “look after everything”. He arranged counselling for the victim and he sent Fr Boland to a psychiatrist. The psychiatrist reported in March 1991 that Fr Boland was remorseful and seemed motivated to ensure no repetition.  

Second complaint  

32.4 Another complaint was made to the Gardaí in March 1994. The complainant alleged he had been abused by a priest in his own home in 1973 when he was about 11 years old. He did not know the priest‟s name but he knew the name of the order and he was able to describe a distinguishing physical characteristic of Fr Boland. The Gardaí then interviewed this complainant‟s parents. They said their son had told them about the assault at the time and the father had complained to a priest in Clonliffe College.  

32.5 This complainant had told his parents in 1973 that he had been abused by a diocesan priest – Fr Ioannes* (see Chapter 17). The complaint in respect of Fr Ioannes was dealt with by Monsignor Richard Glennon (a former chancellor of the Archdiocese, then a vicar general and parish priest). There is no record of this original complaint in the files of the Archdiocese and Monsignor Glennon died in 1985. The complainant‟s parents told the Commission that Fr Boland had arrived at their house shortly after the complaint had been made to the Church authorities about Fr Ioannes. The parents thought he was visiting them as part of the process of dealing with that complaint. Fr Boland and the boy were left in a room together for a short time and the boy came out and complained about him.  

32.6 In 1994, when the Gardaí were talking to Monsignor Stenson about Fr Ioannes*, they told him that there was a complaint against a Fr Dominic who wore a brown robe and had a distinguishing physical characteristic. The Gardaí told Monsignor Stenson that they knew who he was and they were following it up. Monsignor Stenson made a note of this but it was filed in Fr Ioannes‟s files and its connection to Fr Boland was not made by the Archdiocese until 2004.  

32.7 Fr Boland was interviewed by the Gardaí immediately following this complaint in 1994. He said he could not recall this complainant but did remember his house and having tea with the complainant‟s mother. He said that, on occasion, he would hug children but he could not recall doing anything else.  

32.8 The Gardaí prepared a file for the DPP. It is clear from the Garda report to the DPP that the Gardaí believed the complainant. The DPP decided not to prosecute mainly because of the delay, but it was also considered that Fr Boland‟s explanation was quite credible. 

32.9 The order decided that, in light of this allegation, the action taken in relation to the allegation by the first complainant was inadequate. In October 1994, Fr Boland was sent to the Granada Institute for assessment and treatment. At this stage Fr Boland was living in one of the order‟s houses outside of the Archdiocese of Dublin. He was allowed to say mass in public but he did not hold any public appointment.

Suspicion/concern  

32.10 Shortly after this, at Easter 1995, the matron of a hospital, to which Fr Boland was not the chaplain, expressed unease about the fact that he was visiting the children‟s ward. He was withdrawn from all hospital work.

32.11 Granada reported that Fr Boland asserted that his involvement with children in the hospital was purely pastoral and there was no sexual activity. He acknowledged that he had “transgressed a boundary” with the first complainant but nothing similar had happened since. Granada, having discussed the matter with Fr Boland and his superiors, concluded that Fr Boland had not been involved with children in any sexual way since the occasion ten years earlier. However, they pointed out that he had not realised the extent to which his ministry, especially with children, could be perceived as inappropriate and that he needed greater supervision. Fr Boland agreed to hand over his car keys to his superior and not to have any contact with children except with another adult present.  

Third complaint  

32.12 A third complainant came forward in October 1995. He was interviewed by the order‟s delegate. He alleged that Fr Boland had sat him on his knee and kissed him in one of the order‟s houses. He was about eight or nine years old at the time. Fr Boland ran a club for young boys and this complainant had seen him behave similarly towards other boys in the club. This complainant also made a complaint to the Gardaí.  

32.13 In an interview with the order‟s delegate, Fr Boland admitted to sexual activity with the first complainant but not with the two subsequent complainants. He admitted that he had abused other boys in the past but claimed that this behaviour had ceased eight or nine years previously.  

32.14 The order‟s advisory group met and considered the case which was now recognised to be more serious than had previously been thought. It was decided to withdraw Fr Boland from ministry, to send him to another location and to send him for assessment and treatment to a therapeutic facility in the UK. The Granada report and the report of the delegate‟s interview with Fr Boland were provided to the personnel in the UK facility.  

32.15 The members of the order who had lived in the same house as Fr Boland were told that he had been transferred from this house to a clinic in the UK following reports about him which were brought to the Provincial‟s attention. They were also told that the only address to be given for him was that of the head of the order in the UK.  

32.16 The assessment from the UK therapeutic facility showed that Fr Boland acknowledged that he had a sexual interest in, and had been fantasising about sex with, young children since his mid-teens. It described a well developed belief system which supported and legitimised his sexual interest in children. It became apparent to the therapists that Fr Boland had convinced himself that boys of 11 or 12 years were aware of sexual matters and might enjoy being touched in a sexual way. He believed that they would not be harmed by what he was doing to them. Consequently, it became clear to the therapists that Fr Boland had very distorted beliefs that allowed him to sexually offend.  

32.17 Fr Boland described how he used his role as a priest to target children. He would seek out opportunities to be among children and would engage their interest by offering them holy medals and pictures. He would draw upon their perception of the priest to gain their trust and be accepted by them. Once he had targeted a particular child, he would befriend the parents and begin to visit that child‟s house. He would then gradually gain access to the child by manipulating the family members and creating situations where he would be alone with the child. He would then introduce and normalise sexual touching as a regular component of their meetings. He believed that the first complainant “both consented to and actively participated in the sexual contact”. He did acknowledge that he was responsible for the sexual nature of the relationship but failed to see the power differential between him and his victim.  

32.18 He acknowledged that he had fantasised about children all of his adult life and had committed about 100 offences against 20 children. His first offence was when he was 16 years old when he abused an 11 year old. He claimed that he had himself been frequently abused at the age of eight.  

32.19 The assessment concluded that Fr Boland had a high risk of re-offending.  

32.20 The order delegate met the first complainant in December 1995. This complainant did not want any report to be made to the Gardaí and said he would regard such reporting as an invasion of his privacy.  

32.21 A further report was received from the UK therapeutic facility in January 1996. This showed that Fr Boland had many manipulative techniques which he instinctively used to prevent analysis of his offending. He used methods such as:  

intellectualising his sexual abuse and deflecting responsibility onto victims;  

minimising the impact of the behaviour;  

engaging in distorted thinking about children and sexuality.  

32.22 This meant that there were blocks to treating him.  

32.23 Fr Boland was visited in this facility by a member of the order‟s advisory group. She reported that he minimised how he sexually abused children and he attempted to manipulate her into getting him some form of ministry. He used religion and spirituality to divert from his offending. She concluded that he was a dangerous offender and expressed huge doubts about his ability to engage in treatment. His thinking was much distorted and she was of the view that treatment was not helping him and he should be removed from the unit.

Fourth complaint  

32.24 A new allegation then emerged. This was from a girl who alleged she had been abused during a school retreat and that other girls had also been abused. They had told some teachers and two priests but the general reaction was that nobody would believe them as Fr Boland had such a saintly reputation. One of the priests told the order. The girl and her mother were contacted by a member of the order‟s advisory group. The girl was angry with the priest who had reported to the order but agreed to put her story in writing. She refused the offer of counselling.

32.25 A member of the order visited Fr Boland in the therapeutic facility to put the new allegation to him. He denied any sexual involvement but said he had comforted some girls during the retreat. He later said that there were a few girls whom he hugged and kissed.  

32.26 In August 1996, a further report from the UK therapeutic facility showed that Fr Boland was not making progress. He was highly manipulative and continued to exploit the image of the “gentle, elderly, naïve priest”. Since the new allegations had been made, he regarded himself as the victim.

32.27 The advisory group decided that the health board should be informed of the allegations in relation to the school retreat and of the places where Fr Boland had worked and given retreats. The delegate met a representative of the health board.  

32.28 The advisory group member visited Fr Boland again in April 1997. She found that he was making some progress but was still very manipulative. She discussed a support group for him when he was released. She considered that he would need strict boundaries regarding visitors and callers and that he would benefit from a relapse prevention programme.  

32.29 Fr Boland returned to one of the order‟s houses in Ireland in May 1997. A contract of behaviour was agreed. This provided that Fr Boland:  

was free to wear his habit or clerical collar in the friary, but not in public;  

could celebrate mass privately;  

could use all areas of the house except the front door and front office;  

could make phone calls only to family, support group, counsellor, confessor or other members of the order with the permission of the superior in the house;  

could receive phone calls from family, support group, counsellor, confessor or other order members but was not permitted to answer the phone;  

could receive visits but only from family, support group, counsellor, confessor or other order members;  

could receive letters;  

could write letters to family, support group, counsellor, confessor or other order members with the permission of the superior in the house;  

could join the other order members in the Divine Office and could use the oratory but only when the doors were closed;  

could choose his own confessor outside the house;  

could not leave the house without a companion, except to visit the doctor or dentist, therapist or the head of the order and he was not permitted to drive a car.  

32.30 All inquirers would be told that “D.S. Boland is not well and is off work, and that he is unable to see you or speak to you”. 

32.31 Fr Boland attended the Granada Institute for therapy. The local bishop was informed of his current circumstances including the details of the contract.

Suspicion/concern

32.32 In October 1997, a woman wrote to the Archdiocese about her experiences with Fr Boland when he was a hospital chaplain. She said he befriended her children when she and they were visiting her mother in the hospital. He subsequently began to show what she considered to be an abnormal interest in her ten-year-old son. This letter was sent to the order by Monsignor John Dolan. The Archdiocese was told that Fr Boland had been having treatment. Monsignor Dolan replied to the woman saying that the order would deal with the issues. The order replied to Monsignor Dolan telling him that the woman could contact their delegate. Monsignor Dolan wrote to the woman and gave her the details. It seems that she did not contact the order at this stage. The order did not contact her. The order explained to the Commission the thinking behind this failure to contact her:  

“It is now clear that, out of pastoral concern for both herself and her son, […] should have been contacted by the Capuchins once they became aware of the allegation she made against one of their members. However, the thinking back then seems to have been as follows: since all correspondence relating to […] allegation on behalf of her son had been conducted through the good offices of the Diocesan Chancellery, it was thought that […] privacy might best be respected and her freedom of initiative be preserved by her not being contacted directly but, instead, by her being supplied with the phone number of the Order‟s delegate should she wish to contact the Order”.

32.33 Fr Boland continued to attend Granada and in 1998/9 wanted to have some of the restrictions lifted. Granada would not recommend this and it was made very clear to Fr Boland by the head of the order that the restrictions would stay in place.  

Fifth complaint  

32.34 In July 1999, another allegation was reported to the order. This came via the head of another religious order who said that one of its priests had complained that he had been abused by Fr Boland when he about 11 years old – between 1977 and 1979. This complainant had been an altar boy and Fr Boland was helping out in his parish – he officiated at baptisms and benediction. The head of the order met this complainant. He then put the complaint to Fr Boland who remembered the complainant but denied any sexual activity – he said he may have given him a hug. The complainant met the delegate and gave a full account of his experiences with Fr Boland. He also said that his school friend had been treated the same way. The complainant reported the allegations to the Gardaí in September 1999. Fr Boland was interviewed by the Gardaí. He said he could not remember any sexual activity with the complainant. The delegate was interviewed by the Gardaí and he gave them audio tapes of his interview with Fr Boland in relation to this allegation.  

32.35 The Gardaí recommended that Fr Boland be prosecuted for 18 offences of indecent assault against this complainant. Further evidence was collected from the complainant‟s parents. The complainant had told his father about the abuse many years earlier but did not want anything done about it at that time. The DPP directed that Fr Boland be prosecuted on nine counts of indecent assault. He was arrested and charged in July 2000. He asked the order to allow him (rather than anyone else) to tell his family about the charges. The order paid £100 bail.  

32.36 In January 2001, the head of the order was told by the superior in Fr Boland‟s house that it had been made clear to Fr Boland that he had lost the trust of the others in the house because of recurring breaches of his behavioural contract. The house superior suggested a number of changes to the contract. He said it needed to be renamed “Rules” so there could be no ambiguity and to prevent Fr Boland trying to wriggle out of the terms. He further suggested that it should be made clear that the purpose of the rules, above everything else, was the protection of children. He should stop going to Granada as the sessions there were preventing him from facing reality. Fr Boland regarded himself as a victim and did not accept responsibility for his actions or for the consequences of his actions on his victims and the religious order. The revised contract should simply prohibit contact with lay people except with the prior consent of the superior. Other members of the order wrote to the head in a similar vein.  

32.37 In February 2001, Fr Boland wrote a letter of apology to the fifth complainant (in respect of whom he was being prosecuted). He also wrote to the head of the order admitting that he had not always been upright and honest in the past. He admitted that he had ulterior motives in his relationship with children. However, he promised to be a person of integrity and never again be dishonest in any way. He commented that he believed therapy had done him good.  

32.38 Fr Boland was convicted on all nine counts of indecent assault in September 2001. The judge wanted to know if he was continuing to receive treatment. Evidence was given that the fifth complainant (who was working abroad) was making progress because of the letter of apology and the court case. The judge took account of this and the continuing treatment and imposed a 12 month suspended sentence. Fr Boland was also made subject to the Sex Offenders Act 2001 for five years.  

32.39 The order did not report this complaint or conviction to any bishop, including the Archbishop of Dublin in whose diocese the abuse had occurred, or the bishop in whose area he was then living.

32.40 The order contacted the health board about the case. Fr Boland continued to live in the same house and continued to attend Granada. A review meeting was held in Granada in July 2002. Fr Boland felt he was doing well in the house and was determined not to re-offend. However, the other members of the order were concerned about his presence there. He was receiving numerous letters and visits. Granada considered that he was using these letters to perpetuate an image of the holy priest whose prayers had special powers and he should stop letter writing. The order head told Fr Boland that some of his relatives had been in touch recently and were angry that they had not been told of his offending.  

32.41 In November 2002, the mother who had been concerned about Fr Boland‟s abnormal interest in her son contacted the Garda hotline. She said she had contacted the Archdiocese years earlier and got no response. Her son did not wish to make a complaint.  

32.42 In February 2003, the delegate forwarded to the Gardaí particulars of allegations received by the order in relation to a number of its members including Fr Boland. The Gardaí asked the delegate to inform all the victims concerned that they had been identified to the Gardaí and the Gardaí would be in touch with them. The delegate contacted the first complainant and the third complainant and said he was still investigating the case of the girl. The complainants did not reply.  

32.43 In 2004, as part of its review of all child abuse files, the Archdiocese contacted the order about Fr Boland and how the complaints had been dealt with. The Archdiocese was aware of only one complaint (the mother). The head of the order confirmed that the mother had not been in contact with them. He said that other complaints had been received by the order but none related to Fr Boland‟s appointments in the Archdiocese. He said Fr Boland had been removed from ministry. He also told the Archdiocese where Fr Boland was now living and that the local bishop had been fully informed. Astonishingly, he did not mention that Fr Boland had been convicted.  

32.44 The Commission considers that the reply from the head of the order to the Archdiocese, while it may be technically correct, is not the full truth. The complaint in respect of which Fr Boland was convicted related to his involvement in doing supply work in the Archdiocese. It seems that Fr Boland organised various supply and school visiting roles himself, without the involvement of his order, but the order did know of the circumstances in which the fifth complainant was abused. The order has acknowledged to the Commission that the Archbishop of Dublin should have been informed of the complaints in accordance with the requirements of the Framework Document. The local bishop was not fully informed – he had not been told of the conviction although he had been told of some of the complaints.  

32.45 The Archdiocese forwarded all the correspondence from the mother to the order and recommended that the hospital authorities be informed. The hospital was not informed. The hospital was one which had been amalgamated into a new hospital.  

32.46 In October 2005, the order told members of Fr Boland‟s family that it was aware of four named victims and one unnamed victim (it seems that the order did not know the name of the girl who complained in 1996). They were also told that Fr Boland acknowledged 100 offences against 20 children. The order said he was a considerable risk to boys between the ages of nine and 14 years, as he would use his role as a priest to seek out opportunity to be among children and would draw on their perception of a priest to make himself totally trusted. Furthermore, he deflected responsibility onto the victims and minimised the impact of his behaviour.  

32.47 In November 2005, the delegate wrote to the Gardaí requesting a meeting to establish a procedure in relation to offenders who are members of religious orders. A meeting took place in March 2006. Later, the order wrote to the Gardaí about the first complainant‟s request for absolute confidentiality. The Gardaí decided not to approach him.  

Sixth complainant  

32.48 Another complainant told the Commission that he had been abused by Fr Boland. He did not know his full name but did know him as Dominic Savio and described the distinguishing physical characteristic. His account of how Fr Boland befriended him and his family and his account of the abuse was similar to that provided by other victims. On one occasion in 1986, Fr Boland was fondling him in his home when his mother walked in. She immediately told Fr Boland to leave. She complained to a priest in the order house where Fr Boland lived at the time but she got no feedback. She did not inform the Gardaí. The order has no record of this complaint. This complainant was aware of one other boy (whom he named) who he alleged had been abused by Fr Boland.  

The Commission’s assessment  

32.49 The order‟s handling of the first complaint in 1989 was relatively good for its time. The priest was sent to a psychiatrist and counselling was provided to the complainant. This is one of the few cases of which the Commission is aware that counselling was provided for a complainant before the mid 1990s. This complainant was, of course, part of the order as well.  

32.50 After the second complaint was made, the order did its best to try to ensure that Fr Boland did not have access to children. It organised treatment for him and then supervised him well in spite of the difficulties he presented. It co-operated with the Gardaí when they became involved.  

Communication between the order and the Archdiocesan authorities  

32.51 The communication between the order and the Archdiocese was very poor in this case – in fact, it was virtually non-existent on the part of the order. The order did not inform the Archdiocese of the complaints against Fr Boland or of the fact that he was convicted. The order has told the Commission that it accepts that this “represents an unacceptable lapse and wishes to express its regret and concern that such a lapse was allowed to occur”. Its current reporting policy, if maintained, means that such lapses should not occur in the future.

32.52 The Commission considers that the order‟s current arrangements for dealing with alleged child sexual abusers are robust and are being implemented.  

Gardaí  

32.53 The Gardaí dealt appropriately with all complaints reported to them.

DPP  

32.54 The DPP decided not to prosecute in 1994 because of the delay factor. The approach of the DPP to the issue of delay is examined in Chapter 5.

Chapter 33 Fr Quinton*100

Introduction

33.1 Fr Quinton is a member of a religious order. He was born in 1935 and ordained in 1960. He worked abroad for a number of years and then returned to Ireland. He was involved in formation, retreat and vocation work on behalf of his order for a number of years and spent some time studying abroad. He worked in the Archdiocese of Dublin from 1985 to 1992.  

33.2 There are two allegations of child sexual abuse against Fr Quinton. These have not been proven or admitted but concerns remain about his suitability for public ministry. He has not been exercising public ministry since 1999. He lives in one of the order‟s houses and may engage in internal ministry only.  

33.3 There is written evidence from 1978 that there had been some difficulties between Fr Quinton and his students when he was involved in formation work with the order. This does not show any evidence of difficulties relating to sexual abuse. However, it emerged in 1996 that there were concerns about inappropriate sexual behaviour with students.  

Appointment to Archdiocese  

33.4 In September 1984, Fr Quinton applied to Bishop Carroll (who was in charge of the Archdiocese of Dublin at the time) asking to be appointed to a specific parish in the Archdiocese for a year. He had already received permission from the head of his order. This application was treated in the normal way. It was referred to the Advisory Committee on Extra-Diocesan Priests. The committee agreed to consider him for a parish appointment. The head of his order told Bishop Kavanagh that he was a priest in good standing. The head of the order also said that Fr Quinton wanted to work in a parish “in order to assume more personal responsibility for his life. In recent years he has experienced difficulties in living in community life. However, he has sought direction and counselling in these matters”. Bishop Carroll accepted him for a temporary appointment in the Archdiocese of Dublin and, in February 1985, he was appointed temporary curate until summer 1985. In fact, he stayed there beyond that time and, in May 1986, he applied for a further extension of a year. This was approved in July 1986. In 1987, Bishop Carroll noted that he had heard high praise from the parish priest about Fr Quinton‟s work. In 1988, he applied for and was granted a three-year extension, that is, until 1991. He continued in his position when this period expired.  

Complaint  

33.5 In 1991, a young man with an intellectual disability who was working in a sheltered workshop run by the St John of God Hospitaller Services told the workshop manager that he had been sexually abused by a priest while he was staying in a hostel for young people. Fr Quinton used to visit the hostel but was not formally appointed to it. The workshop manager told the manager of the hostel and she also reported to Dr Patrick Walsh who was the director of psychological services in the St John of God order and had responsibility for ensuring that child protection policies within the order were carried out. The young man, who was aged 20 at this time, told Dr Walsh that the abuse had started when he was about 15 or 16. He alleged that the abuse had started with seductive behaviour towards him in the hostel. This was followed by oral sex in the priest‟s home. He also alleged that Fr Quinton had given him money from time to time. The young man told a similar story to the manager of the hostel.  

33.6 The hostel manager informed the parish priest of the allegation and the parish priest told Bishop Murray, who was the area bishop. He told Bishop Murray that a psychologist thought there was “something in it”. Bishop Murray informed Monsignor Stenson. Bishop Murray spoke to Fr Quinton who denied the allegations. Fr Quinton said that the young man used to visit him in his house, they listened to music and watched videos and he did give him a “few quid” on occasions. The young man‟s brother had come to his house on a number of occasions and made allegations against him.  

33.7 Bishop Murray then spoke to the hostel manager. The hostel manager told Bishop Murray that he was convinced that it was the young man‟s own story and he was not being put up to it by his brother. The hostel manager had “grilled” the young man twice and his story was consistent with what he had told Dr Walsh. The manager had also spoken to Fr Quinton, who had denied the allegation and said that no such accusation had ever been made to him (even though he told Bishop Murray that the brother had made such an allegation).  

33.8 Bishop Murray spoke to Dr Walsh, who advised that, even though the complainant was an adult, the health board should be informed because he had an intellectual disability. They agreed that Dr Walsh would meet Fr Quinton.  

33.9 Bishop Murray met the head of the order. The head told him that Fr Quinton had a poor relationship with him and with the authorities of the order but that there had been no sex abuse issues. Bishop Murray told Fr Quinton to see Dr Walsh and he agreed. Bishop Murray also told him to stay out of the parish for a period. Dr Walsh met Fr Quinton. Dr Walsh did not consider he was meeting him in order to carry out an assessment but Bishop Murray seems to have considered that was the case. Dr Walsh saw his role as dealing with a child protection concern within the St John of God services. He told the Commission that Fr Quinton understood his role. The Archdiocese usually referred priests against whom child sexual abuse allegations had been made to Dr Walsh for assessment. The Commission accepts that Dr Walsh saw his role as dealing with a child protection concern within his employment but considers that he should have explained this clearly to Bishop Murray and should have not become involved in reporting to Bishop Murray or anyone else in the Archdiocese or the order about the alleged abuser. His subsequent reports and advice to Bishop Murray, while they may not constitute a formal psychological assessment, do include assessments of Fr Quinton.  

33.10 Dr Walsh reported to Bishop Murray that he was quite certain that Fr Quinton was not a paedophile but that he had blurred the boundaries of appropriate behaviour.  

33.11 In a report compiled in January 1992, Dr Walsh concluded that there was a ring of truth to the allegation. He said that Fr Quinton staunchly denied the allegation. He described the priest as a “pugnacious” person who had a history of being in dispute with his superiors in the order but “inquiries there indicate that they never had any suspicions of homosexuality or sexual deviations”.  

33.12 In March 1992, having been notified of the matter by Dr Walsh, the director of community care in the health board convened a case conference. This was attended by Dr Walsh and a number of social workers. The case conference concluded that it was impossible to “confirm or refute the allegations”. The health board considered that the hostel manager had acted responsibly and there was no contact between current residents of the hostel and Fr Quinton.  

33.13 Dr Walsh reported to Bishop Murray about the case conference and his own dealings with Fr Quinton. He reported that Fr Quinton had denied the allegations. Dr Walsh understood from Fr Quinton that these were the first allegations of their kind against him and, as they were unsubstantiated, he could not ask him to receive treatment. He did not believe Fr Quinton was a risk but he should be warned that his relationship with the complainant was inappropriate. He also recommended that Fr Quinton have a change of duties. If he was to be allocated parish work, the parish priest should be made aware of the allegations and that he should be careful about any involvement with residential homes for children or young people.  

End of Archdiocese appointment  

33.14 In April 1992, Fr Quinton sought a further year‟s extension to his appointment to the Archdiocese of Dublin (his existing appointment had already formally expired in July 1991). Monsignor Stenson advised Archbishop Connell to withhold his consent. He pointed out that, according to Canon 693 of the code of canon law: “If the member is a cleric the indult101 is not granted until he has found a bishop who will incardinate him in his diocese or at least receive him there on probation. If he is received on probation, he is by virtue of the law itself incardinated in the diocese after five years, unless the bishop has rejected him”. Monsignor Stenson pointed out that Fr Quinton could argue that he was received on probation in the Archdiocese of Dublin in 1985 (seven years earlier) and was, therefore, automatically incardinated (see Chapter 3). However, he thought the more correct view was that Fr Quinton remained a member of his order. Monsignor Stenson was concerned that the time for incardination would run from 1988 and it was, therefore, important that no automatic incardination be allowed. Fr Quinton was granted a retrospective extension of a year which meant that his appointment would end in mid 1992. The Archbishop made it very clear that Fr Quinton could continue in ministry in the Archdiocese until then but that he would not be willing to incardinate him permanently into the diocese. Fr Quinton was released from his diocesan duties as planned.  

33.15 It would appear that the complaint was the main reason for the unwillingness to incardinate Fr Quinton. However, there were indications that he was a somewhat difficult personality and this may have been a factor. The order seems to have believed that the complaint was the main factor. The Archdiocese is not obliged under canon law to give reasons for its refusal.  

Attempts to rejoin the Archdiocese  

33.16 Immediately after he ceased working in the Archdiocese in mid 1992, Fr Quinton‟s superior wrote to Archbishop Connell saying that Fr Quinton wished to continue working in the Archdiocese. He proposed that Fr Quinton would continue to live within the order but would be available full time for archdiocesan duties. Bishop Murray was consulted and he recognised that there was a risk in such an arrangement. The Archdiocese was aware that there were unresolved issues in Fr Quinton‟s relationship with his order but did not know exactly what these were.  

33.17 Fr Quinton was not allowed back to the Archdiocese but no formal decision to that effect was issued. He remained within his order but his request for a return remained in place.  

33.18 In 1995, at the request of the order, Dr Walsh saw Fr Quinton and issued a report on the complaint made by the young man. He had offered the young man and his brother a number of appointments in order to establish what exactly was being alleged and they had not pursued the matter. He concluded that the matter should be brought to a close as the case had been effectively dropped because it was never substantiated and should consequently not have any bearing on Fr Quinton‟s future life or work. Bishops Murray and Walsh were informed of the report. Bishop Murray told the Commission that he had no further dealings with the case as he was appointed Bishop of Limerick in March 1996. The St John of God order continued to support the young man in its sheltered workshop until his death in 2007.  

Rumours and suspicions  

33.19 In March 1996, the head of the order reported that he had met Fr Quinton to discuss the allegations against him. He wanted to bring the allegations “to a conclusion”. He also spoke to Fr Quinton about the rumours of improper behaviour which allegedly took place while he was master of students in the early 1970s. This was the first time that a member of the order had raised these rumours with Fr Quinton. At a meeting with the Granada Institute these rumours/innuendos were discussed. The conclusion reached was that the rumours from the 1970s could not be substantiated and the two brothers involved in the 1991 complaint would not be credible witnesses. The head of the order then wrote to Archbishop Connell saying that he, Fr Quinton and Dr Walsh had met and “all matters relating to the allegations made … were thoroughly discussed”. He enclosed a separate letter which included the information about the rumours from the time Fr Quinton was a master of students. This separate letter does not seem to have been received by the Archdiocese. It is not in the archdiocesan files and Monsignor Stenson did not refer at all to these rumours when he next dealt with the subject of Fr Quinton. The head of the order expressed the wish that “this will bring the matter to a successful conclusion”.  

33.20 In August 1996, the order proposed that Fr Quinton be appointed to one of the parishes for which it had responsibility in the Archdiocese. It appears that the priest had been exercising ministry at an oratory in the Archdiocese.  

33.21 Monsignor Stenson recommended to Archbishop Connell that he not accept the appointment of Fr Quinton to the parish run by the order and the Archbishop did not do so. Monsignor Stenson argued that just because the victim and his brother did not pursue the matter with Granada did not itself establish that no incidents had occurred. Although the allegations remained unsubstantiated they were never withdrawn and were never canonically investigated.  

33.22 Monsignor Stenson suggested to the head of the order that a canonical investigation be held into the allegations. The head of the order told Monsignor Stenson that Fr Quinton was living in one of the order‟s houses and occasionally helped out in an oratory. Monsignor Stenson said this involved exercising ministry in the diocese and the Archbishop would not be happy with that. The head then mentioned the rumours/innuendos but said he could not provide details. Monsignor Stenson noted “I thought it was an interesting revelation”. The head of the order told Dr Walsh of the intention to hold a canonical investigation.  

33.23 In September 1996, Dr Walsh provided another report to the head of the order. This contained very detailed information about the 1991 complainant which he had obtained in the course of his investigation on behalf of the St John of God order and contained the same analysis as the previous reports. It did not mention the rumours/innuendos of which Dr Walsh was aware. This report was also provided to the Archdiocese. After examining the report, the head of the order and his canon lawyer agreed that a canonical investigation was unnecessary when a thorough investigation of the case had already been carried out in 1992 by the health board.  

33.24 In April 1997, Archbishop Connell said that if Fr Quinton was to be allowed a diocesan appointment, the details of his case must be considered by the advisory panel. Fr Quinton agreed to this. The advisory panel recommended that Fr Quinton be comprehensively assessed by a psychologist other than Dr Walsh and that further inquiries be made of the parish priest. If the result of these actions was satisfactory, the panel considered that Fr Quinton could be appointed to one of his order‟s parishes in the diocese. They recommended that he should not be reappointed in isolation from his order as had happened in his earlier appointment.  

33.25 Monsignor Stenson then effectively carried out his own investigation – he spoke to the parish priest and to the hostel manager. The hostel manager told him that he considered there was a ring of truth about the allegations. Monsignor Stenson was impressed by this man and considered that his “opinion should not be discounted lightly”.

33.26 In July 1997, the Archbishop was concerned to discover that Fr Quinton was involved with a youth group; he discovered this from a magazine. The head of the order told Fr Quinton to cease this involvement and reported to Monsignor Stenson that he (the head of the order) had not been asked for Fr Quinton‟s services nor had Fr Quinton been given permission for this involvement.  

Another complaint, 1998  

33.27 In August 1998, a former student for the priesthood reported to the order about events that had occurred in 1972/3 when Fr Quinton was in charge of the students. This particular student had reported to another member of the order that Fr Quinton was abusing a young boy. He claimed that he knew the abuse was occurring “for a fact” but nothing was done about it. Shortly after this he was asked to leave the order.

33.28 After some time, he revealed the name of the victim and that he had reported in 1973 to a number of members of the order. The order has told the Commission that concerns were expressed to two members of the order at the time. One has been dead for many years but the other recalls being approached by this man and concerns being expressed about Fr Quinton‟s relationship with students. Concern was expressed in relation to one student in particular but no specific allegation of abuse was made. Fr Quinton, as well as being in charge of students, was also in a position of authority within the order. The order member to whom the concerns were expressed did not report the matter further. This seems to the Commission to have been due, partly at least, to the position Fr Quinton had in the order. The order has told the Commission that it is no longer possible for the person in charge of students to be in such a position of authority.

33.29 In September 1998, a member of the order who had been a novice in the early 1970s noted that Fr Quinton had a reputation among novices of being sexually disinhibited in his contact with them and was prone to sexual “acting out”. This was made known to Granada and is mentioned in the report which was issued in November 1998.  

33.30 In November 1998, another Granada psychologist issued a report on Fr Quinton. As well as a personality analysis, this showed that Fr Quinton had been alienated from the authority structures in the order for many years. Fr Quinton was sceptical about the assessment and his life as a priest in general. He denied the allegation of sexual assault and reported no erotic interest in males. The report noted that Fr Quinton had gravitated towards ministry with younger adults over the years and had enjoyed relating to young adults more than older groups. While Fr Quinton denied any sexual misconduct, it was possible that a person with his profile could break other boundaries including sexual boundaries.  

33.31 The report concluded that Fr Quinton was not amenable to therapeutic intervention due to his bitterness and resentment but should the allegations be clarified, he might agree to attend a therapeutic programme.  

33.32 The order decided to pursue the complaints made by novices in the 1970s. The allegations do not seem to have been put to Fr Quinton. In fact, he seems to have heard of them only when he got the Granada report just before he went abroad. The specific allegation of abuse does not seem to have been investigated further nor was it put to Fr Quinton.  

33.33 Fr Quinton was helping out in a parish at weekends at this time.

Withdrawal from ministry  

33.34 In January 1999, due to the inconclusive allegations against Fr Quinton, his involvement with the youth group, the Archbishop‟s discomfort with him ministering in the Archdiocese and the repeated concerns expressed over the years about his relationship with young adult men, the head of the order asked him to have an assessment carried out. Fr Quinton went to a therapeutic facility abroad for this assessment. A report was issued in February 1999.  

33.35 This report shows that, for the first time, Fr Quinton admitted that he became aware of his homosexuality in his early 20s. He denied any activity with others. It was recommended that he participate in a residential programme in order to address psychosexual issues and that he remain out of ministry until such a programme was completed.  

33.36 Fr Quinton was unwilling to take part in such a programme. The order withdrew him from ministry because of his failure to comply with this recommendation. The order reported all of this to the Archdiocese. The Archdiocese would not allow him to undertake any public ministry until his difficulties were addressed. Fr Quinton was referred to a psychotherapist by Dr Walsh. This therapist seems to have acted as an intermediary between him and the order. In November 1999, he reported that Fr Quinton had attended 16 sessions and that he had not seen anything that would indicate a danger of sexually abusing children during the course of his ministry. However, this therapist clearly heard only Fr Quinton‟s version of events and he was under the impression that the 1991 allegation against Fr Quinton was “without substance”. He does not seem to have been aware of the concerns in relation to the 1970s.  

33.37 Many meetings were held within the order with Fr Quinton to try to resolve the impasse. Fr Quinton argued that he was being considered guilty and invoked canon law. The order consulted its canon lawyer who took the view that removing the priest from public ministry could not be regarded as automatically damaging his lawful good name and reputation and referred to canon 682.2 which states that no religious has a right to a pastoral assignment and can be removed from office.  

33.38 The order did try to find suitable work for him. The delegate for the order investigated the rumours/innuendos relating to the 1970s. The main complaints were not related to sexual abuse but there were allegations that Fr Quinton was over friendly with some students and there was excessive drinking in the seminary.  

33.39 The specific complaint about sexual abuse of a young student does not seem to have been further investigated. This complaint was not made known to the Archdiocese. 

33.40 The problem remained that an allegation had been made and not withdrawn. It was impossible to prove or disprove it. Nevertheless, it was clear that both the hostel manager and Dr Walsh considered that there was something in it. There were also concerns about Fr Quinton‟s relationship with young men. The report from the overseas therapeutic facility is clear that Fr Quinton needed residential treatment to deal with psychosexual issues and that he should not be in ministry until this was completed. Fr Quinton refused to take such treatment. The impasse remains. His psychotherapist, whom he had been attending for six years, recommended in 2006 that he should be allowed public ministry.

The Commission’s assessment  

33.41 The woman in charge of the sheltered workshop is to be commended for her prompt and caring response. The hostel manager also dealt well with the matter and ensured that Fr Quinton did not have further access to the hostel. The health board did not report to the Gardaí. The Commission considers that it should have done so even though the complainant was an adult at the time. He was an adult with an intellectual disability and so the health board acted appropriately in organising a case conference.  

33.42 The Commission considers that the Archdiocese was correct in not allowing Fr Quinton back into ministry as serious concerns remain over his behaviour. It is also clear from his involvement in the therapeutic facility abroad that he was less than candid in his dealings with the Church authorities and Granada.  

33.43 The order does not seem to have thoroughly addressed the complaint about specific sexual abuse in the 1970s. The order did have a problem in finding suitable activities for Fr Quinton who clearly was disenchanted with the order but chose to remain in it.  

33.44 The Commission is concerned about the role of Dr Walsh in this case. The Commission recognises that Dr Walsh dealt appropriately with the complaint in his role within the St John of God order. However, he should have made it clear to Bishop Murray and to the order that this was how he saw his role. The Commission considers that he should have taken no further part in assessing Fr Quinton because of the potential conflict of interest between the interests of the young man and the interests of the alleged abuser. Dr Walsh does not accept that there was any conflict of interest.  

33.45 Communication between the order and the Archdiocese was reasonable in this case. However, neither the Archdiocese nor the order seems to have adverted to the fact that Fr Quinton‟s original appointment to the Archdiocese had ended and was allowed to continue without specific sanction. In fact, the Archdiocese nearly allowed Fr Quinton to become incardinated by default.

Chapter 34 Fr Marius*102

Introduction

34.1 In August 1992, Monsignor Alex Stenson, the then Chancellor of the Archdiocese, received a call from a mother alleging that her daughter, who was now in her late twenties, had been abused by Fr Marius when she was 12 years old in the 1970s. Fr Marius was then based in a parish on the north side of Dublin. A preliminary investigation was ordered by Archbishop Connell and Monsignor Stenson was appointed the delegate for the purpose of the investigation.

34.2 The very next day Monsignor Stenson met the mother and daughter and recorded their complaints. The abuse was alleged to have taken place in the complainant‟s own home. She told Monsignor Stenson that when her mother would make tea she would be left alone with Fr Marius and he would put his hand down her top and feel her. She said that it was common for him to hold girls‟ faces in his hands and to kiss their faces and lips. She named another girl who she said was subjected to this.  

34.3 She recounted an evening where Fr Marius called to her home on the pretext of taking her to a group meeting in the presbytery. When they got to the presbytery, no one else was there. She said that he shut the door and began to kiss her and removed her top and he then opened his trousers and masturbated on her. After that evening she tried to avoid him and also avoided any parish activities in which he was involved. Later she married and, like many abused people, her marriage broke down because she developed a repugnance to the sexual side of marriage. She was now anxious to ensure that this priest no longer had the opportunity to abuse.  

34.4 Two days after meeting the complainant, Monsignor Stenson met the priest and put the allegations to him. He “accepted the apparent truthfulness” of the account but said he had no recollection of the girl. He wondered how it would affect his future as a priest and if he would be ruined. He then recalled the girl and he wrote to Archbishop Connell to deny the allegations.

The priest’s background  

34.5 Fr Marius was ordained in the 1950s. While a student in Clonliffe, he was charged with indecently assaulting a 15-year-old girl in a cinema. He was acquitted and the District Court Judge at the time made it clear that it was not to affect his future in the college.  

34.6 His first appointment was as chaplain to a geriatric hospital. Allegations were made while he was there that he was too close to a trainee nun. Archbishop McQuaid had the matter discreetly investigated and it seems to have been decided that it was totally out of character for the priest. Documentation about this complaint was discovered in the Clonliffe College archive in 2004.  

34.7 Fr Marius subsequently held appointments in a number of parishes. He was a parish priest when the complaint was made in 1992.  

Assessments and Church investigation  

34.8 Following Monsignor Stenson‟s preliminary investigation, both the complainant and Fr Marius were sent for a psychological assessment and the consensus was that the complainant‟s account was more than likely to be true. In September 1992, Monsignor Stenson informed Archbishop Connell that the medical professional considered the matter “to be very serious” and “would suggest we act immediately” and “that others are probably at risk”. Sometime between 1992 and 1995, Archbishop Connell carried out a search of the secret archives to ascertain if there were any previous complaints about this priest. At that stage he would have discovered the records of the 1950s charge and acquittal. Monsignor Stenson was not aware of any archival material when he received the 1992 complaint. Further inquiries by Monsignor Stenson revealed that many women felt uncomfortable in Fr Marius‟s company. They stated that he was inclined to encroach on their personal space and was overly tactile. There were rumours emanating from his period as parish priest that he had fathered a child who was placed in foster care. Fr Marius denied this allegation. It was not followed up by the Archdiocese. A priest colleague noted what he referred to as a „hint of a pattern‟. He stated “I took no direct action on the matter, other than always watchful, ready to take evasive action”.

34.9 A further medical report was obtained and the view of the second medical practitioner was that the priest was in denial. It was also noted that he expressed a worrying preference for working with children.  

34.10 Around this time Fr Marius developed a heart complaint and had to be admitted to hospital.  

34.11 Eventually Monsignor Stenson thought that the best option for Fr Marius would be to resign on health grounds. He would be given a number of weeks to tidy up parish matters and leave with “dignity”.  

34.12 A medical report in December 1992 noted that Fr Marius was not a compulsive paedophile but there were concerns about his inappropriate behaviour towards women. His treating psychologist concluded that he was unlikely to abuse again in the future. The psychologist proposed that continued counselling and adequate supervision would be sufficient safeguards. The psychologist made it clear that he believed the complainant unreservedly.  

34.13 The Archdiocese paid for counselling for the complainant and offered counselling to her mother.  

Resignation  

34.14 Fr Marius accepted the proposal regarding his resignation. There were restrictions put in place on his activities. In March 1993, a house which he was to share with his brother was bought for him. Bishop Murray, who was the area bishop, told the Commission that he was aware of the background when Fr Marius moved into his area. Fr Marius was allowed to say mass once a week, to help with Sunday mass and hospital mass but he was not allowed any involvement in any sermons or activities where young people were concerned. These restrictions were to be put in the form of a behavioural contract.  

34.15 By May 1993, the behavioural contract had not been put in place and Monsignor Stenson noted that he was not being properly monitored at this time. Eventually, towards the end of June 1993, a behavioural contract was drawn up and signed. Under the contract:  

He was to be in regular contact with a clinical expert, an unnamed church representative and the local parish priest in connection with his personal situation and pastoral involvement with the nursing home in the area.  

He was to keep in regular contact with his spiritual director.  

He was to be willing to attend any qualified counsellor on the understanding that the information would not be shared with a third party  

He was restricted from taking part in any apostolate involving children.  

He was restricted from taking part in any pastoral work other than in the nursing home.  

He was restricted from physical contact with children beyond a handshake.  

Under no circumstances was he to allow himself to be alone with a child whether inside or outside his place of residence.  

He was not allowed to become familiar with the families and children of the residents he came into contact with through his work in the nursing home.  

The parish priest of the parish where he lived was to be made aware of the situation and he was to be allowed to discuss with him any areas of concern about the manner in which he conducted his relationships with children.  

Failure to comply with any of the conditions could result in termination of his employment as well as having to share accommodation with another priest.  

34.16 Despite the fact that this contract was signed in June 1993, it was late 1994 before the parish priest in the area where Fr Marius lived was told of his situation by Bishop Murray. Bishop Murray told the Commission that the parish priest in the area where Fr Marius did some ministry in nursing homes had reservations about his ministering in those homes. These reservations were based on his manner which was “hard to take”. Bishop Murray said that he met Fr Marius on several occasions between 1993 and 1995 to “ask him whether he was abiding by his contract, that he was having no contact with children in the locality and to enquire about his general wellbeing”. Bishop Murray told the Commission that he was not responsible for the monitoring of Fr Marius.  

34.17 In March 1995, concerns were expressed about the monitoring system as Fr Marius had not returned to the Granada Institute where he was receiving treatment. In November 1995, he was told by Bishop Murray to cease all work in the diocese.  

34.18 Bishop Murray had received reports from the nursing home where he was ministering stating that he was unsatisfactory to work with as he would invite young nurses back to his home and attempt to kiss them.  

Notification to the Gardaí  

34.19 The Gardaí were notified about the 1992 allegation in July 1995, but as the complainant did not wish to make a statement to the Gardai, the matter went no further.  

Monitoring system, 1997  

34.20 In December 1997 Monsignor Stenson spoke to a local priest about the monitoring system that was supposed to be in place. The priest recalled a vague conversation with Bishop Murray but said that nothing was mentioned about a monitoring system. It would appear that the only system that was in place at that stage was one where Bishop Murray inquired from Fr Marius if he was behaving himself.  

Further complaints  

34.21 In October 1998, another complaint was made to the Archdiocese about Fr Marius. This complaint was made to the parish priest of the area where the abuse had taken place. The complainant‟s doctor felt she was not physically or emotionally ready to make a formal complaint to the diocese at that time. The Archdiocese did not pursue the matter with the priest. It did make clear to the complainant that it would assist with counselling.  

34.22 In July 1999 the Archdiocese received reports that Fr Marius was offering his services to the priests of an English parish.  

34.23 In February 2002, a complaint was received from a women who claimed that she had been abused by Fr Marius. She alleged that the abuse occurred when she was aged between 12 and 17 years old. The complainant later revealed that she was the same person who had reported the abuse to the parish priest in 1998. In April 2002, she requested answers to the following questions through her solicitor:

How long did he serve in the parish where he abused her?  

What other parishes did he serve in?  

How many allegations were made against him?  

When did the complaints come to the notice of the Archdiocese and how were they dealt with?  

When was he removed from ministry?  

Did he have any contact with schools or institutions?  

She also sought compensation for the trauma which she had suffered. She claimed that Fr Marius raped her once and sexually assaulted and attempted to penetrate her on other occasions. This abuse occurred while she was assisting with parish activities.  

34.24 In May 2002, the Archdiocese notified both the Gardaí and the health board about this new complaint.  

34.25 As the second complainant had not received a reply to her letter of April 2002 to Cardinal Connell by August 2002, she instructed her solicitors to take a civil action. Cardinal Connell told the Commission that the delay in replying to her letter was due to a delay in his Solicitor‟s office. She also expressed her annoyance that the Church had notified the Gardaí without her permission. Her civil case was settled in 2005.  

The advisory panel  

34.26 In June 1997, the advisory panel considered the case and recommended that Fr Marius be given an appointment as a chaplain to a community of nuns. In 2002 the panel recommended that he be made the subject of a canonical precept. This was done and, under the terms of the precept, he was:  

forbidden from celebrating mass publicly; he was allowed to celebrate mass privately but only with those who knew the reasons behind the precept;  

not permitted to celebrate the other sacraments with the exception of the sacrament of penance, in situations of danger of death;  

restricted from any kind of unsupervised contact with minors;  

not permitted to wear clerical garb;  

obliged to attend the Granada Institute for assessment;  

obliged to remain in regular contact with his priest advisor;  

told that any violation of the precept would result in suspension and reduction of income.  

34.27 In November 2002, the advisory panel recommended that his faculties be formally withdrawn. The panel was unsure whether the terms of the canonical precept had been put in place.  

The Gardaí  

34.28 As the Gardaí had not received a direct complaint, they felt they could not investigate the matter.  

The health board  

34.29 In November 2003, a social worker from the health board requested an update on Fr Marius‟s situation.  

34.30 She asked about monitoring and also whether the psychological assessment was a “risk assessment” and if so what the results were.  

34.31 In September 2004 the Child Protection Service of the Archdiocese wrote to the social worker outlining the fact that Fr Marius lived with his brother, that he was visited by his support priest once a week and that the parish priest of the area where he was living had been informed of his past. The social worker expressed satisfaction with these arrangements.  

The Commission’s assessment  

34.32 The Commission is concerned at the delays that occurred in this case, in particular, the failure to respond speedily to a complainant‟s correspondence, (even if it was a delay in the solicitor‟s office); the delay in putting the behavioural contract in place; and the delay in notifying the parish priest about his residence within the parish.  

34.33 There was a major problem about the monitoring of this priest. Despite the fact that he was the area bishop and was in touch with the priest on a regular basis between March 1993 and the time of his appointment as bishop of Limerick in February 1996, Bishop Murray failed to put a proper system in place. Bishop Murray has said that it was not his responsibility to put a monitoring system in place. He told the Commission that his involvement was “solely at the request and direction of Archbishop Connell.” Bishop Murray also said that there was “no developed thinking” within the Archdiocese at this time regarding how a known or suspected offender should be supervised. Once again, this case illustrates the weaknesses in the management of the Archdiocese, the lack of communication between the authorities in the Archdiocese and the failure to properly address the whole question of monitoring. In the Commission‟s view, there was nobody responsible for monitoring.  

34.34 The Commission is aware that further complaints have been received in relation to Fr Marius. These complaints emerged during the currency of the Commission‟s remit and are the subject of an ongoing Garda investigation.

Chapter 35 Fr Noel Reynolds

Introduction  

35.1 In June 1992, Fr Noel Reynolds was appointed parish priest of Glendalough, Co Wicklow. He was just under 60 years of age. This was his first appointment as a parish priest. It was while there in 1994 that, according to a statement given to Gardaí, concerns were expressed to a neighbouring curate about his behaviour with young children. Among those concerns were that he talked “dirty” to a group of children aged between 11 and 12, that he spoke to them in a sexual manner, that he was in the habit of bringing young children for walks, that he encouraged them to swim naked in the river, that he would bring them in his car and have them sitting on his lap while driving and that he exchanged sweets for kisses. Some of the children spoke to their school principal telling him that they did not feel safe with the priest. These matters were reported to the chancellor, Monsignor Stenson, in September 1995.  

Background  

35.2 Fr Reynolds had been a priest for just over 30 years at this stage. He was ordained in 1959. He had entered Clonliffe College in 1952 on the personal recommendation of Archbishop McQuaid after he was deemed unsuitable to train as a Holy Ghost Father. He had been educated by the Holy Ghosts.  

35.3 He had attended boarding school from the age of eight. He was extremely lonely and it was noted in a psychological report by Dr Patrick Walsh of the Granada Institute in May 1997 that he (Fr Reynolds) recalled going through classes and falling for young attractive boys although he was totally unconscious of any sexual content to such attractions. Dr Walsh noted that he was warned from time to time against special relationships by the dean of studies.

35.4 His passage through Clonliffe was unremarkable but Dr Walsh noted in his psychological report that it was clear from the time of his ordination that Fr Reynolds had a special interest in ministry to children. It was also noted that he had children sit on his knee during confessions.

35.5 He spent periods as a chaplain to a number of girls‟ schools before being appointed in 1969 as a curate to Kilmore Road parish. He stayed in this parish until 1978.  

35.6 During the course of his curacy at Kilmore Road he wrote a very unusual seven-page letter to Archbishop Ryan about the deep unrest that was permeating his life. He stated that “a feeling of unrest has been continually with me for the past six months or so. I am upset by the quality of my life…Would it be possible to live with the poor? To live with a family…”.  

35.7 At this stage, Fr Reynolds had already begun abusing children. While the Commission accepts that to live among the poor may be a commendable desire for a priest, it is nevertheless surprised that this letter did not lead to some further assessment of the suitability of Fr Reynolds for parish work.  

35.8 The mother of one of the complainants told the Commission that he was a constant presence in their home over a period of seven years while in Kilmore Parish. He would take meals with the family and watch television with them. He would ask permission to wish the girls goodnight and unknown to her was abusing them in their own bedroom.

35.9 Fr Reynolds‟s friendship with children was noted in the area as he constantly brought young children to his home as well as on outings to the sea. A priest of the diocese who was an altar boy around this time vividly remembers the fact that young girls were constantly around Fr Reynolds. While he himself did not witness any impropriety he felt that this kind of lifestyle made Fr Reynolds vulnerable to having a complaint made against him.

35.10 From 1978 until August 1983 he was in East Wall parish. While there, the parish priest went into Fr Reynolds‟s bedroom one evening to turn off the light and noted a female lying asleep in his bed. He considered she was around 30 years old. According to his statement to Gardaí in July 1997, he said he was shocked by the discovery but that he did not speak to Fr Reynolds or anybody else about the matter.  

35.11 It is highly unlikely that the female in Fr Reynolds‟ bed was a 30-year-old woman given his admitted propensity for young children. Later, in his garda interviews, Fr Reynolds admitted to abusing a female teenager over a period of two days while he was in East Wall and the evidence strongly suggests that it was that teenager who was in Fr Reynolds‟s bed.  

35.12 In 1983 he sought a transfer from Dublin to an island posting so that he could “be more in tune with the people”. He told the Archbishop that he wanted “to give away everything (or as much as possible) and separate myself from life in Dublin where there are far too many distractions”.  

35.13 In July the Archbishop told him that he had written to the Archbishop of Tuam with a view to finding an island home for him: “Meanwhile I am informing him of your identity which so far as been carefully concealed”.  

35.14 When he did identify Fr Reynolds as the priest seeking the transfer, Archbishop Ryan assured Archbishop Cunnane of Tuam “that Father Noel Reynolds is a dedicated and devoted priest and will give good service to the Islanders”. No assessment was done of him prior to assigning him to Tuam. In his interviews with the Gardaí, Fr Reynolds admitted to abusing on the island but did not identify the victims.  

35.15 After leaving the island he spent some time in Bonnybrook parish and studying prior to being appointed as a curate in Saggart, Co Dublin. In 1992 he was appointed parish priest of Glendalough and in 1994, the concerns outlined above were raised.

The Church’s investigation

35.16 In October 1995, Archbishop Connell issued a decree initiating a preliminary investigation into complaints from Glendalough under canon 1717 of the code of canon law (see Chapter 4). Monsignor Stenson was appointed as delegate. It was not until late February 1996 that Monsignor Stenson met the school principal to receive details of the complaint. Because the allegations related to matters outside the school, the principal had recommended to the parents of the girls involved that they contact Archbishop‟s House or the health board‟s director of community care. They were unwilling to do that. Monsignor Stenson told the Commission that he had made a number of attempts to contact the school principal before the actual meeting took place.  

35.17 At that meeting the principal claimed that there was no physical or sexual abuse. He said that a parent had spoken directly to Fr Reynolds about the matter and that Fr Reynolds indicated that it would stop. An indication of how seriously the principal viewed the matter can be gleaned from his statement: “There was gossip and innuendo - I never left him in a class on his own subsequently. I didn‟t allow my daughter to be an altar girl. They were saying he was talking about „making love‟ when the girls first spoke to me”. 

35.18 Another parent was unhappy about getting a parent to approach Fr Reynolds. He told Gardaí that in 1997 there were rumours that Fr Reynolds was interfering sexually with local children. He told Gardaí that he rang Archbishop‟s House and said he wanted Fr Reynolds removed. Fr Reynolds was removed the following July. The Commission could find no evidence of this phone call in the Archdiocesan files.  

Interview with Fr Reynolds  

35.19 Despite the existence of a decree initiating a preliminary investigation in October 1995, Monsignor Stenson, in his capacity as delegate, did not meet Fr Reynolds until March 1996. The following note, created by Monsignor Stenson, and signed by him and by Fr Reynolds, records what happened at that meeting:  

“I informed Noel that I would let him hear the complaint and that he need not comment or say anything - that he had his rights. I read the file. Noel would agree that what I told him was a perfectly good description of what had taken place. He was approached by a parent [. . .] concerning his own daughter and he mentioned that his teenage daughter used to snub me when I visited the house. They asked what was wrong and she said that Fr Reynolds used to talk dirty. Dirty talk? I suppose jokes that you‟d be embarrassed to tell in the company of their parents. Word games - a rhyme with sexy connotations.

And since [the parent] was with me I have stopped all this. For the past two years it‟s been like that. It was my own folly rather than maliciousness. I didn‟t want to frighten anyone or make them feel unsafe. Something similar had occurred in other parishes but never became public. If I‟d been assessed before going into Clonliffe I would have been a repressed person and in need of affection. My mother died at 4. Longing for love. In 1959 in Dundrum Tech I freaked giving children a class on sex instruction. I was always trying to disassociate the idea of dirt from sex. I never allowed them take the Holy Name but allowed them to talk sex. Even in confession I overstressed the affection of God with children. People knew the children sat on my knee but it never gave rise to complaints. A nun in East Wall made life difficult – wanted me in and out of the school in a half an hour - because of my talks on the facts of life with children. I have spoken this over with some priest friends - but listening to [a priest counsellor] I believe loneliness as a child has been a huge factor. I would admit that my sexual orientation is towards children. Children would arouse me sexually. Noel agreed that he had taken children for walks and outings on his lap in the car etc. On another occasion another group of children in fourth class wanted to get into the river for a swim. Noel went away – he had a towel in his car so they could dry their feet - if paddling. But he didn‟t want to be around so he didn‟t know if in fact they had or not.

As the youngest in the family I never took charge of situations - but I was afraid to say no. I have had nightmarish outings – rows on the beach - stopping the bus for sweets – I was lacking in discipline. My orientation to children has caused me much pain. I took on children who were disadvantaged and some very bold. Noel would look back on his judgement in this area of children with a degree of suspicion. Folly he would call it. I haven‟t noticed any „cooling off‟ in the Parish by adults. I have a funny feeling that I never had an adolescence. At 63 my judgement in these areas of children has been foolish. I think I can control it. It was a habit. I think I can avoid bad behaviour anymore - imprudent - folly. I will go for any help that is required.

I am considering taking a sabbatical in Moone103 with a possible view to entering there. . . I‟m still journeying myself. But there is an element of letting me be 70 million miles away from all this…the school, allegations etc.”

35.20 Shortly after this meeting with Monsignor Stenson, Fr Reynolds met the Archbishop. He expressed a desire to go to Moone to be a Cistercian monk. This seemed acceptable to the Archbishop.  

35.21 A meeting was held with the Abbot of Moone following which he wrote to Monsignor Stenson as follows:  

“I had a visit recently from Fr. Noel Reynolds. As you may be aware he has expressed a wish to enter our Community. In the course of our conversation he told me about some incidents involving children while he was administering as P.P. in Glendalough. He had discussed the incidents with the Archbishop who told him to ask me to contact you. He seemed rather reticent about the whole matter and I didn‟t like to press him because it is a very sensitive area. But it would seem that there was a complaint made to Archbishops House. I would be glad therefore if you could let me know what you think I should know about these incidents.”  

35.22 In May 1996, a meeting took place between the Abbot and Monsignor Stenson. It was agreed that Fr Reynolds should be assessed by someone like Dr Patrick Walsh with a view to assisting the monks and Fr Reynolds to reach a decision. He did not join the Cistercians.  

Advisory panel  

35.23 In March 1997, the case was referred to the advisory panel. Monsignor Stenson, as the delegate, produced a report for the panel. In April 1997, the panel concluded that it did not consider there was any firm evidence that any incidents of child sexual abuse took place although it seemed clear that some inappropriate behaviour did happen. The panel recommended that he undertake an assessment by Dr Patrick Walsh of the Granada Institute. At this stage, over two years had elapsed and he was still in the parish of Glendalough.  

Dr Walsh’s assessment  

35.24 In May 1997, Dr Walsh issued a preliminary report. He noted that he could not give a definite conclusion until he had completed a more detailed assessment of Fr Reynolds‟s personality and the history of the problem. He stated that Fr Reynolds was capable of maintaining a positive and appropriate ministry to adults. He was also capable of a positive and appropriate ministry to children but in a limited way. He recommended that Fr Reynolds should not be involved in non-structured or informal interactions with children in the parish or in school. He also recommended that Fr Reynolds should confine himself to the administration of the sacraments in the normal way but with the proviso that, when he heard confessions, he maintain the proper protocol and avoid physical contact and remain focused on the administration of the sacrament. He further stated that it would be inadvisable for Fr Reynolds to be involved in teaching and that he should not be involved in matters dealing with sexuality. Overall, Dr Walsh concluded that Fr Reynolds had shown “considerable confusion in his relationships with children. He has confused his own needs as a child with their needs and consequently has failed to maintain appropriate adult-child boundaries. In addition he has used inappropriate language in his classes and interaction with children”.

35.25 Dr Walsh recommended that a priest support person be put in place for him. This was not done until around July 1998.  

National Rehabilitation Hospital  

35.26 Despite this assessment, Fr Reynolds was appointed by Archbishop Connell as chaplain to the National Rehabilitation Hospital, Rochestown Ave, Dun Laoghaire in July 1997. Granada was not informed of this appointment. Bishop O‟Mahony told the Commission that he was the liaison bishop for hospital chaplains. He called to the hospital as a result of concerns raised by the director of nursing about Fr Reynolds‟s physical health. He told the Commission that it was during this visit that he became aware that Fr Reynolds might have a problem with child sexual abuse. He arranged an appointment for Fr Reynolds with Dr Walsh of Granada. Bishop O‟Mahony explained to the Commission that, at that time, he was not aware that Fr Reynolds had already been assessed by Dr Walsh in 1997 nor was he aware of the contents of Monsignor Stenson‟s interview with Fr Reynolds in 1996.  

35.27 The National Rehabilitation Hospital caters not only for adult patients in need of rehabilitation but it also has a children‟s ward and a school. The hospital authorities were not informed of Fr Reynolds‟s history and did not discover it until approached by a representative of the Prime Time programme Cardinal Secrets in 2002. The director of nursing, not surprisingly, expressed great concern both to the Archdiocese and in the media at the failure of Archbishop Connell to provide her or the hospital with full details of Fr Reynolds‟s background. The hospital management wrote a strong letter of complaint to Cardinal Connell. The Cardinal replied with an apology in the following terms: “No explanation of mine could justify the fact that the National Rehabilitation Hospital was not informed of this background at the time of Fr Reynolds appointment as chaplain. I acknowledge that this was a serious error, although made without realisation of the risk involved”.  

35.28 It is difficult for the Commission to understand how, in 1997, Archbishop Connell, in view of the information he had of complaints, could not have been aware of the risk involved in such an appointment. Over the period of Fr Reynolds‟s time at the hospital, there were a total of 646 in-patients of whom 94 were aged 18 or younger. When it became aware of Fr Reynolds‟s history, the hospital wrote to all 646 patients and established a help line. None of the calls or letters received reported issues of concern or required further action. The hospital also reported the matter to the health board and introduced improved safeguards for its young patients.  

Further complaints  

35.29 In February 1998, the mother of one of Fr Reynolds‟s alleged victims spoke to the chancellor, Monsignor Dolan, indicating that her daughter had been sexually abused by a priest some 20 years previously. She did not give the name of the priest nor was she asked for it. She was told that, as her daughter was now an adult, she would have to make the complaint herself. She was also told that if the complaint passed the threshold of suspicion it would have to be reported to the Gardaí. The mother expressed herself very pessimistic about the ability of her daughter to go to Archbishop‟s House. The mother told Monsignor Dolan that she herself was receiving counselling and he was assured she had someone to talk to about her situation. Given that the matter was serious enough for the mother to receive counselling, the Commission finds it strange that the name of the priest was not sought. Had it been sought, Monsignor Dolan could have accessed Fr Reynolds‟s file and seen his admissions to Monsignor Stenson made almost two years earlier.  

35.30 Bishop O‟Mahony had a meeting with Dr Walsh and Fr Reynolds in May 1998. Dr Walsh wrote to Bishop O‟Mahony stating that he was of the firm view that Fr Reynolds posed no threat to children. However, the recommendation of May 1997 should continue to be observed that “Fr. Reynolds is also capable of positive and appropriate ministry to children but in a limited way” and he repeated that he should not be involved in non-structured or informal interactions with children in the parish or in school.  

35.31 At this stage Fr Reynolds was still acting as chaplain in the National Rehabilitation Hospital.  

35.32 Six days after Dr Walsh wrote to Bishop O‟Mahony, a social worker at a drug treatment centre contacted the chancellor, Monsignor Dolan, to tell him that a client had alleged that she had been abused by Fr Reynolds when she was nine years old. She said that she had informed Bishop Eamonn Walsh of the matter the previous week and he had advised her to write to the Chancellor.  

35.33 She said she was particularly concerned because Fr Reynolds was a chaplain at the National Rehabilitation Hospital stating: “I regret to have to write this letter but I feel it is important that you are alerted as the person is in a Chaplaincy position”.  

35.34 It is recorded that Archbishop Connell was notified of the social worker‟s allegations in late May 1998. A handwritten note indicated that Dr Patrick Walsh was sent a copy of her letter in early July 1998.  

35.35 In July 1998, Archbishop Connell released Fr Reynolds from his duties as chaplain to the National Rehabilitation Hospital and nominated him as a beneficiary of the Diocesan Clerical Fund (see Chapter 8). The hospital was not informed of the reasons for Fr Reynolds‟s removal and assumed it was due to his poor health. By this time, Fr Paddy Gleeson had been appointed assistant delegate and was now handling the matter on behalf of the Archdiocese.  

35.36 This was notified to the social worker who had approached the Archdiocese with the complaint against Fr Reynolds. She was told that he would be living in monitored retirement pending the outcome of his case and that he would be receiving therapy from Dr Walsh. 

35.37 At this stage Fr Reynolds was not living in monitored retirement. He was living unmonitored first with his sister and subsequently with his stepmother.  

Meeting with victim’s mother

35.38 In November 1998, the mother who had initially contacted the Archdiocese and who now claimed that not one, but two, of her daughters had been abused by Fr Reynolds had a meeting with Fr Reynolds and his support priest. At this meeting, Fr Reynolds acknowledged that he had abused her daughters. This was confirmed by his support priest.  

35.39 Following this meeting Fr Reynolds was medically examined and it was noted that, in addition to his cardiac problems, he suffered from the initial stages of diabetes and Parkinson‟s disease and that he should not live alone. He had been living with his sister and later moved in with his stepmother. In January 1999 a place was found for him in a nursing home.  

Formal complaint  

35.40 The Archdiocese held the view that no formal complaint had been made. They therefore had not reported the matter to the Gardaí. In June 1999, the social worker contacted Fr Gleeson to inform him that the two sisters had made contact with the Gardaí with regard to making a complaint about Fr Reynolds. She told him both had been interviewed but had not made statements.  

35.41 Later in June 1999, Fr. Gleeson contacted the Gardaí at the sexual assault unit at Harcourt Street and informed them that the Archdiocese had received complaints of sexual abuse by Fr Reynolds while he was attached to the parish of Kilmore West in the late 1970s.  

35.42 It was clear from the statements made by the two sisters to the Gardaí that the allegations were extremely serious. It was the worst case of “serious and systematic abuse” that the drug centre social worker had encountered.  

35.43 In August 1999, the priests in all the areas where Fr Reynolds worked were contacted and brought together for a meeting to explain the situation.  

35.44 A report in a newspaper in August 1999 alleged that the Gardaí had launched a major investigation into rape claims by two sisters against an elderly priest. It also alleged that the priest had used a crucifix in what was described as a sick sex assault. The priest was not named.  

35.45 Later in the same month, Fr Reynolds travelled to Rome to celebrate the 40th anniversary of his ordination.

A further complaint  

35.46 In October 1999, the Gardaí received a complaint from another woman alleging that she had been sexually abused by Fr Reynolds while he was a curate in Kilmore West in the 1970s. She alleged that, as she was preparing for her communion, he sat her on his knee and put his hands into her pants and put his finger into her vagina. It was alleged that this had happened on five separate occasions prior to her making her first communion.  

Admissions by Fr Reynolds  

35.47 Fr Reynolds was arrested in October 1999 for the offence of raping one of the two sisters referred to above between the years 1971 and 1979.  

35.48 The Gardaí carried out a very thorough investigation into this case. Fr Reynolds was interviewed and he admitted widespread abuse. He claimed that he was pressurised into making a number of comprehensive statements but the Commission could find no evidence of this. During the course of his interviews with the Gardaí, Fr Reynolds admitted abusing one of the sisters when she was 11 and the other when she was six years old and putting his finger into their vaginas when they were in bed in their own home. He told the Gardaí that he was sexually attracted to young girls and that they were not the only two victims in Kilmore. He could remember about 20 girls in total; there were others in East Wall and on the island in the diocese of Tuam. He admitted inserting a crucifix into one girl‟s vagina and back passage. He said he had admitted to their mother that he had abused her daughters. He said he offered their mother £30,000 in compensation but that she did not accept it.  

35.49 Not only did he admit the abuse of the two sisters and several others in many other parishes, but he also offered as evidence to the Gardaí, the crucifix with which he had said he had abused one of the complainants. The Gardaí did not confine their investigations to the area where the two women claimed they had been abused but they also conducted inquiries in several of the parishes where Fr Reynolds worked. A very comprehensive file was forwarded to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP). The DPP was prepared to initiate a prosecution against Fr Reynolds and gave instructions to that effect. Following representations from his solicitor about Fr Reynolds‟s deteriorating health, and specifically the medically verified onset on dementia, the DPP changed his mind.

35.50 The two sisters were bitterly disappointed with the outcome.  

Other complaints  

35.51 The Gardaí became aware of another 12 complainants. While nine were prepared to make statements, the other three declined to do so. The incidents ranged from fondling of genitals to touching around the leg area, digital penetration, anal rape, attempted sexual intercourse, oral sex, actual sexual intercourse and inviting the children to fondle his penis.  

35.52 In many cases the abuse continued for between two and seven years.  

35.53 In total, nine females and six males claim they were abused by Fr Reynolds. They were aged between six years and 11 years at the time of the abuse. Of course, he has admitted to many more cases of abuse, at least 20 in Kilmore alone.  

Health board  

35.54 A note on the health board file states that the matter was referred to them in February 2001. A second note in November 2002 states that “we had decided to follow up on safety issues in relation to the above. I now understand the man is deceased, so current living arrangements need no further follow up”.  

35.55 Fr Reynolds died in April 2002.  

The Commission’s assessment

Archdiocese  

35.56 This case was extremely badly handled by the Archdiocese. Numerous indications of serious abuse and of admissions by Fr Reynolds were ignored. The suspicions about Fr Reynolds surfaced during his time in Glendalough in 1994. Despite the fact that the parents had no desire to go to the Gardaí or to the health board, and wished the Church to deal with the matter, it was March 1996 before any interview with Fr Reynolds was conducted. He admitted to the complaints. He stated that something similar happened in other parishes. No proper investigation was conducted into his activities in other parishes. Despite this admission he was allowed to remain on as parish priest in Glendalough until July 1997. The Commission accepts that Monsignor Stenson only became aware of the complaints in October 1995.  

35.57 In the interview with Monsignor Stenson in March 1996, Fr Reynolds also admitted that his sexual orientation was towards children. A record of this interview is signed by Fr Reynolds. Again, despite this, he was given an appointment in the National Rehabilitation Hospital. This appointment gave him access to young children. Subsequently, Bishop O‟Mahony became aware that Fr Reynolds may have a problem with child sexual abuse but he does not seem to have mentioned this to anyone else in the Archdiocese or, indeed, to the hospital. This, the Commission believes, represents a major breakdown in communications among those in overall charge of the Archdiocese.  

35.58 When the mother of two of Fr Reynolds‟ complainants reported to the chancellor, in February 1998, that her daughter had been sexually abused by a priest 20 years previously she was told that, because her daughter was an adult she would have to make the complaint herself. The Commission recognises that she did not name the priest nor was she asked for his name. She explained that her daughter was unlikely to go to the Church authorities to complain.  

35.59 When the social worker reported her fears that a priest whom she claimed may have sexually abused one of her clients some 20 years previously was currently working in a situation where he had access to children, this also was ignored. She did name Fr Reynolds. 

35.60 It seems to the Commission that a somewhat extraordinary approach was adopted towards Fr Reynolds. The situation was that, in 1994, the Church authorities had received information about inappropriate behaviour by a priest in Glendalough. They themselves had set up a preliminary investigation and discovered that the priest in question had admitted a sexual orientation towards children and to inappropriate behaviour in other parishes. Yet, when an allegation was received from the social worker who specifically named the priest as having allegedly abused the woman, the priest was allowed to remain in the hospital for a further seven weeks.  

35.61 There is no evidence that Bishop O Mahony related the contents of his conversation with Fr Reynolds to the hospital management. When the management of the hospital discovered in 2002 that a child sexual abuser, unknown to them, had been assigned to them as chaplain, they took all appropriate steps to ensure that their patients were informed and facilitated should they have any complaints. Furthermore, it is commendable that they put improved structures and appointment procedures in place to protect children.  

35.62 It seems to the Commission that, had the two women themselves not complained to the Gardaí, the Archdiocese would have been quite happy to ignore the fact that any abuse had taken place.

The Gardaí  

35.63 The Gardaí carried out a very thorough investigation into this case as described above.  

Health board  

35.64 There was no significant involvement by the health board in this case because the matter was not referred to it until February 2001 by which time the priest was living in a retirement home and died shortly thereafter.

_______________

Notes: 

99 This is a pseudonym.   

100 This is a pseudonym.   

101 An indult of exclaustration is the canon law procedure used when a member of a religious order leaves the order to work in a parish. 

102 This is a pseudonym.   

103 Moone, Co Kildare is the headquarters of the Cistercian Order.  

Go to Next Page