Bishops should always act according to best pastoral practice when dealing with cases of clerical child sex abuse even when legal advice suggests it might leave diocesan finances exposed as a result, the Bishop of Killaloe has said.
Speaking this week at a conference on "Healing and Reconciliation" in Knock, Co Mayo, Dr Willie Walsh said that, where cases of clerical child sex abuse were concerned, "the first and most important consideration for a bishop is the pastoral care of the victim."
Where "legal advice runs contrary to best pastoral practice, then the bishop must act in accordance with best pastoral practice, even though it may leave him or diocesan finances exposed as a result," he said.
At the conference he said that where the crisis was concerned, "we as bishops, certainly in the early stages of our response, made some dreadful mistakes which effectively increased the pain and the anger of victims.
"We listened too easily to advice from lawyers both civil and canonical and seemed more concerned for the protection of the church than the protection of children.
"We can offer a wide variety of excuses, some of them with significant validity, others perhaps wishful thinking, but we cannot escape the terrible reality of the pain of victims of abuse."
And whereas he did not believe "any of us bishops would tell a deliberate lie, I do believe that at times we have been less than forthcoming with the truth" concerning the issue, he said.
He was "only too well aware that in the eyes of many victims, 'lawyer' is almost a dirty word.
"Unfortunately in earlier times some of us were foolish enough to think that if we were advised by a lawyer that advice had to be followed. The reality is that a bishop may well need legal advice in a particular situation just as a victim may need such advice, but there are other, more important considerations." First and foremost was acting in accordance with "best pastoral practice" whatever the possible financial cost.
"It is important, too, to be conscious that lawyers are about protecting the interests of their clients, they are not about reconciliation," he said.
He recalled an instance when he allowed a lawyer write "a rather confrontational letter to another lawyer representing a victim. I saw \ simply as part of the adversarial process between the two lawyers. I foolishly perhaps did not see it as touching the relationship between myself and the victim. The letter caused significant pain to the victim and caused me much difficulty in trying to undo the damage." He said "there are times when consultation with lawyers becomes necessary but I do believe that they should be used as sparingly as possible."