Fidelma Healy Eames (Fine Gael)

What is the legal status of the Murphy report as it stands? Will priests who sexually abused children and those who covered up and facilitated such abuse by not acting be convicted as a result of this report? What is the legal status of the report? I am not convinced that it has a powerful legal status. Page 44 of the report states that an archdiocese does not "have to comply with any regulations or norms that are supervised by the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement". It explains that "the precise legal status of the Archbishop of Dublin has yet to be determined by the Irish courts". It suggests that according to legal advisers for the archbishop, it is by his own discretion that he can establish himself as "a corporation sole". The report explains that "a corporation sole is a legal entity consisting of a single person, so that the corporation passes from one holder of a position to the next". The haziness surrounding the legal position of the archbishop of the Archdiocese of Dublin makes it difficult for any legal action to be taken against the archdiocese or the archbishop regarding clerical child abuse. The State has to act. It seems fundamentally wrong that the archbishop and the bishops are responding to Canon Law but not to Irish law. Our children will be at risk as long as that continues.

Generations of children have been abused. Page 45 of the report states that "the supervisory role of an archbishop .... has been described by canon lawyers as "very, very minor"." Is this a way out? The Murphy report mentions that in the Ferns Report, there was "no evidence" of jurisdiction exercised over Bishop Herlihy or Bishop Comiskey. It points out that "every bishop is accountable directly to the Holy See". The report states that according to Canon Law, "each bishop has "legislative, executive and judicial power" over the church he is entrusted with. By contrast The Irish Times today reported that "Vatican analyst Giancarlo Zizola argued that however much Irish public opinion might struggle to understand the Vatican's "silence", there was nothing surprising or scandalous about it". It quotes Mr. Zizola as saying that "when things like this happen in the local church, it is the local church which must assume responsibility" and that "there is a clear division of responsibility here – the pope is not the church". The Vatican is saying it is up to the church in Ireland.

The legal basis for the approach being taken by the Archbishop of Dublin is that he does not feel he needs to be responsible to Irish law. We will continue to be in trouble if we do not take this matter into our hands. My reading of the Murphy report is that everyone is passing the buck. The Murphy report states that "as long as he operates within the canon law, the bishop is free to [operate his church] as he sees fit". That is very serious when one considers that the report also states that the actions of Bishop Murray of Limerick were "inexcusable". The commission agrees with the view expressed in the Ferns Report that a bishop's personality is reflected in how a diocese is run. If bishops do not take responsibility, for example by taking action on behalf of victims and refusing to condemn the actions of the erring priests under their wing, what hope can victims have?

We must protect the good people in the church. Many bishops are named in this report, including the Bishop of Galway, Martin Drennan, who happens to be my local bishop. Page 617 of the report states that in 2002 and 2003, "Bishop Martin Drennan heard reports that Fr. Guido was indulging in inappropriate behaviour which gave rise to concern". It continues:

Bishop Drennan recommended that he attend at the Granada Institute for treatment, but he adopted delaying tactics and the Granada Institute then declined to take him because of his resistance. In May 2003, he was sent for an initial assessment to a consultant psychologist. During that assessment he admitted that he was homosexual. [The psychologist] recommended that Fr Guido not have any contact with children or young people until the assessment had been completed and that he go abroad for treatment.

I am satisfied that Bishop Drennan took the necessary steps and made the necessary recommendations when it was brought to his attention that the behaviour of this priest was risky. The priest in question had been acting out, for example by "inviting young people to his house for meals and collecting teenagers from pubs late at night". He had also "taken young people to Lourdes and joined them for drinking parties". While there may be more to it than I know, it seems that the bishop acted when he had received enough information. I am satisfied that he took the necessary action. Not every bishop who is named in the Murphy report should be wronged. If there is evidence that a bishop did not take appropriate action, we have to act resolutely. I am concerned about the legal haziness associated with this issue. It seems that each bishop is accountable to himself. The report makes it clear that it cannot be argued that these bishops were ignorant:

Many of those in authority in the Archdiocese had civil law degrees or occupied prestigious appointments in third level education. Monsignor Sheehy, Bishop O'Mahony and Bishop Raymond Field were qualified barristers. Bishop Kavanagh was Professor of Social Science in University College Dublin where both Archbishop Ryan and Archbishop Connell held high ranking academic posts.

These men were very well informed - they knew the law of the State and the Canon Law.

On the worrying issue of legal privilege, when Archbishop Connell met a member of the Garda Síochána in 1995, a document containing the names of 17 alleged clerical abusers and the claimants in each case was submitted. The commission is of the opinion that this submission was not adequate as it was not done in compliance with the standards of the framework document of 1996. It is alleged that there were 28, rather than 17, abusers. Just 17 abusers were disclosed. When Archbishop Connell was questioned on the matter, his reply was that those priests who were not on the list had not been members of the clergy at the time. It was a cop-out for him to say they "had been laicised". He justified this omission by saying he would not answer for people who had been laicised. The Murphy report quotes Archbishop Connell as saying that the disclosure "was a beginning and it was a very big beginning because nothing of the kind had ever happened before". What good is that to victims?

As I am conscious of the time constraints I am facing, I will conclude by speaking about the control of our schools. As we know, the church is the patron of almost all of this country's primary and secondary schools. I appreciate that there are other patrons like the VECs and Educate Together. However, the time has come to consider seriously the role of the Catholic Church in the patronage of primary and second level schools. Major practical issues arise in this regard such as who would move in were it to move out. However, Members must agree fundamentally that children can never be placed at risk. I encourage the Minister of State to examine this issue.