You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
N
NPC
Guest
I, like everyone in Ireland (indeed around the world), applaud the courage that abuse victims shown in making their voices heard - we all want justice for them.
However, I cannot support calls for Bishop Drennan to resign, and I disagree with Maeve Lewis’ assertion that it would be the “right thing”. Firstly, although I am a Catholic in Bishop Drennan’s diocese of Galway, Kilmacduagh & Kilfenora, I don’t believe that I am biased - I would call for his resignation if I felt he was indeed guilty. However, the more I look into the Murphy Report, the more I am convinced that Bishop Drennan should stand his ground and stay.
We know at this stage that the Murphy Report mentioned Bishop Drennan in relation to one case - but he was not “named and shamed” as he and the Archdiocese were found to have acted correctly. However, I do not think it is fair to take this one case in isolation, although it was the only one examined by the Commission which Bishop Drennan dealt with. To examine the wider situation as it was following the 1996 guidelines, reveals that Bishop Drennan - who was appointed as an auxiliary bishop in 1997 - was most certainly working in a different situation to his brother bishops who had been appointed pre-1996.
Archbishop Connell set up an advisory panel which first met in April 1996. This panel had equal numbers of men and women. Three members were clerics; the laypersons had backgrounds in psychiatry, social-work, law and business (7.22). The main guiding principle of the panel’s recommendations was the safety and welfare of children (7.25) - this is hardly surprising, especially given that the majority of lay panel members were themselves parents (7.22). This panel produced recommendations relating to 27 of the cases examined by the Commission (7.23).
The Commission agreed with evidence given by Desmond Cardinal Connell that from 1996 onwards every case which came before him was sent to the advisory panel for consideration. Furthermore, it supports the Cardinal’s declaration that, in respect of the cases examined by the Commission, he accepted and implemented every recommendation (7.29). Granted, the 1996 guidelines were not flawless, but it is clear that Bishop Drennan was serving in the Archdiocese at a time when serious attempts were being made to deal with the issue of sexual abuse. This is evidenced by the fact that the Archdiocese undertook a number of initiatives to examine the problem - such as the Committee on Child Abuse (1999) and the commissioning of an independent research study on child sexual abuse by clergy (2001). In addition, the Irish Bishops’ Conference established the child protection office in 2001.
Judge Murphy has made it very clear - from the very first chapter of the report - that for much of the period examined by her, there was a cover up by some Church authorities. No one disputes this, and it is a source of great shame. However Judge Murphy also acknowledges that in the mid-1990’s “a light began to be shone on the scandal and the cover up” (1.113). Two paragraphs prior to this statement, Judge Murphy acknowledges the 1996 guidelines to have been a turning point in the Archdiocese, especially since it was from January 1996 that the Archdiocese began reporting all complaints to the Gardai.
However, despite the details given in the Murphy report, certain people are continuing to call for Bishop Drennan’s resignation. It seems to me that our bishop has been more than forthcoming with information regarding his time in Dublin - he has concisely explained his role in the Archdiocese in a number of radio interviews, as well as answering questions which were put to him by the press. Those calling for his resignation fall back, without fail, to the “guilt by association” or “collective responsibility” charge. I find it most interesting that I have not heard one person calling for the resignation of Archbishop Diarmuid Martin - after all, he served in the Archdiocese for no less than 18 months of the Commission’s period of investigation, having been appointed Coadjutor Archbishop in May 2003. Why no call for his resignation? Because he is rightly perceived to have done his best. It seems to me that Bishop Drennan also did what he could.
Yes, some people are questioning Bishop Drennan’s decency because of the firm position he has taken. The most deplorable questioning of his integrity has come from the Archbishop of Dublin - yet, Archbishop Martin fully supported Bishop Drennan’s appointment as Bishop of Galway in 2005. Far from questioning the integrity of Bishop Drennan at that stage, he obviously felt that Bishop Drennan was a worthy successor to Bishop McLoughlin. If anyone’s integrity is in question at the present time, it is that of the Archbishop of Dublin - he seems to think that his only duty is to the victims, even if it means he has to scapegoat a brother bishop in the process.
I want justice for victims of abuse as much as anyone else - even as much as Archbishop Martin. However, I believe that, as a society, we should be worried if we are content to allow the illusion of justice to come at the expense of a person’s good name and reputation - whether they be a nurse, teacher, guard, cleric or builder. And it will only be an illusion of justice if it is not accompanied by (indeed preceded by) the truth. If we support the calls for Bishop Drennan to resign we will be sending out a strong message. Unfortunately, it will not be one of justice - on the contrary, we will be telling the world that we want an end to the culture of secrecy and cover ups, but we are happy to have injustice and untruths as our new moral foundation. Nothing will have changed. Therefore, I can only conclude that we add our voices in support of Bishop Drennan - as Martin Luther King said: “an injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere”. We will not see justice until we open our eyes to the truth.
However, I cannot support calls for Bishop Drennan to resign, and I disagree with Maeve Lewis’ assertion that it would be the “right thing”. Firstly, although I am a Catholic in Bishop Drennan’s diocese of Galway, Kilmacduagh & Kilfenora, I don’t believe that I am biased - I would call for his resignation if I felt he was indeed guilty. However, the more I look into the Murphy Report, the more I am convinced that Bishop Drennan should stand his ground and stay.
We know at this stage that the Murphy Report mentioned Bishop Drennan in relation to one case - but he was not “named and shamed” as he and the Archdiocese were found to have acted correctly. However, I do not think it is fair to take this one case in isolation, although it was the only one examined by the Commission which Bishop Drennan dealt with. To examine the wider situation as it was following the 1996 guidelines, reveals that Bishop Drennan - who was appointed as an auxiliary bishop in 1997 - was most certainly working in a different situation to his brother bishops who had been appointed pre-1996.
Archbishop Connell set up an advisory panel which first met in April 1996. This panel had equal numbers of men and women. Three members were clerics; the laypersons had backgrounds in psychiatry, social-work, law and business (7.22). The main guiding principle of the panel’s recommendations was the safety and welfare of children (7.25) - this is hardly surprising, especially given that the majority of lay panel members were themselves parents (7.22). This panel produced recommendations relating to 27 of the cases examined by the Commission (7.23).
The Commission agreed with evidence given by Desmond Cardinal Connell that from 1996 onwards every case which came before him was sent to the advisory panel for consideration. Furthermore, it supports the Cardinal’s declaration that, in respect of the cases examined by the Commission, he accepted and implemented every recommendation (7.29). Granted, the 1996 guidelines were not flawless, but it is clear that Bishop Drennan was serving in the Archdiocese at a time when serious attempts were being made to deal with the issue of sexual abuse. This is evidenced by the fact that the Archdiocese undertook a number of initiatives to examine the problem - such as the Committee on Child Abuse (1999) and the commissioning of an independent research study on child sexual abuse by clergy (2001). In addition, the Irish Bishops’ Conference established the child protection office in 2001.
Judge Murphy has made it very clear - from the very first chapter of the report - that for much of the period examined by her, there was a cover up by some Church authorities. No one disputes this, and it is a source of great shame. However Judge Murphy also acknowledges that in the mid-1990’s “a light began to be shone on the scandal and the cover up” (1.113). Two paragraphs prior to this statement, Judge Murphy acknowledges the 1996 guidelines to have been a turning point in the Archdiocese, especially since it was from January 1996 that the Archdiocese began reporting all complaints to the Gardai.
However, despite the details given in the Murphy report, certain people are continuing to call for Bishop Drennan’s resignation. It seems to me that our bishop has been more than forthcoming with information regarding his time in Dublin - he has concisely explained his role in the Archdiocese in a number of radio interviews, as well as answering questions which were put to him by the press. Those calling for his resignation fall back, without fail, to the “guilt by association” or “collective responsibility” charge. I find it most interesting that I have not heard one person calling for the resignation of Archbishop Diarmuid Martin - after all, he served in the Archdiocese for no less than 18 months of the Commission’s period of investigation, having been appointed Coadjutor Archbishop in May 2003. Why no call for his resignation? Because he is rightly perceived to have done his best. It seems to me that Bishop Drennan also did what he could.
Yes, some people are questioning Bishop Drennan’s decency because of the firm position he has taken. The most deplorable questioning of his integrity has come from the Archbishop of Dublin - yet, Archbishop Martin fully supported Bishop Drennan’s appointment as Bishop of Galway in 2005. Far from questioning the integrity of Bishop Drennan at that stage, he obviously felt that Bishop Drennan was a worthy successor to Bishop McLoughlin. If anyone’s integrity is in question at the present time, it is that of the Archbishop of Dublin - he seems to think that his only duty is to the victims, even if it means he has to scapegoat a brother bishop in the process.
I want justice for victims of abuse as much as anyone else - even as much as Archbishop Martin. However, I believe that, as a society, we should be worried if we are content to allow the illusion of justice to come at the expense of a person’s good name and reputation - whether they be a nurse, teacher, guard, cleric or builder. And it will only be an illusion of justice if it is not accompanied by (indeed preceded by) the truth. If we support the calls for Bishop Drennan to resign we will be sending out a strong message. Unfortunately, it will not be one of justice - on the contrary, we will be telling the world that we want an end to the culture of secrecy and cover ups, but we are happy to have injustice and untruths as our new moral foundation. Nothing will have changed. Therefore, I can only conclude that we add our voices in support of Bishop Drennan - as Martin Luther King said: “an injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere”. We will not see justice until we open our eyes to the truth.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.