This is the full text of the statement issued by Cardinal Connell on Saturday relating to Ms Marie Collins:
Mrs Marie Collins was subjected to appalling abuse as a child by a priest of this diocese, Father Paul McGennis, in 1960 when she was a patient in Our Lady's Hospital for Sick Children, Crumlin.
Mrs Collins has made serious criticisms about some elements of the diocesan response to her complaint in October 1995 and how Father McGennis was dealt with in the period immediately afterwards.
I accept that Mrs Collins has been justified in the most fundamental of these criticisms. Our failures became an additional burden to Mrs Collins and I wish to offer her my heartfelt apology.
A delay of four months occurred in the removal of Father McGennis from his house in Edenmore parish. Unknown to me, he continued to visit the parish after February 1996. This should not have happened and would not happen today.
We were too slow in recognising that although Mrs Collins's complaint related to events in 1960, immediate child protection questions arose in late 1995 about his more recent parish appointments. These concerns were not raised with the Eastern Health Board until November 1996. Church guidelines, published in January 1996, require that we notify the Health Board immediately when such questions arise and this is our practice today.
In 1996 Monsignor Stenson, the then chancellor of the diocese, judged admissions by Father McGennis as confidential to our church enquiry. I now consider that Mrs Collins and the common good in this case would have been better served if an acknowledgment had been given of this information to the gardaí.
It would then have been a matter for the court to determine whether Father McGennis's statement to the church enquiry should be admitted in evidence against him.
In acknowledging our failures, I also wish to provide an account of some aspects of our response to Mrs Collins's complaint.
When I received a letter of complaint dated 2nd October 1995 from Mrs Collins, I initiated an investigation by Monsignor Stenson. I did so in accordance with canon law. For those not familiar with canon law, it is a code which governs the workings of the Church. Among other things, it sets out how a bishop should investigate complaints against a priest of wrongdoing.
Monsignor Stenson met with Mrs Collins on 10th October 1995. During the meeting, Mrs Collins indicated that she had already informed the authorities at Our Lady's Hospital, and that they had reported her complaint to the gardaí.
Monsignor Stenson contacted the hospital and confirmed that this had happened. The gardaí contacted Monsignor Stenson. He met with them and provided them with vital information of a similar nature about Father McGennis, which had come to the attention of Archbishop McQuaid through the gardaí in August 1960. Monsignor Stenson made a statement to the gardaí on 23rd November 1995. Neither Monsignor Stenson nor myself was aware of the existence of the information in our archive until I received Mrs Collins's complaint, which prompted me to check our records.
As the only person with access to these records, I acknowledge this as a failure on my part.
At an early stage in the church investigation, Father McGennis made admissions to Monsignor Stenson about the matters which had been raised by Archbishop McQuaid in August 1960. He also made admissions which caused Monsignor Stenson to be satisfied that Father McGennis had abused Mrs Collins, although he did not admit to abusing Mrs Collins specifically, as he claimed he did not remember her.
Monsignor Stenson told Mrs Collins about Father McGennis's response because she had instigated the complaint and was therefore entitled to this information. Mrs Collins notified the gardaí about the admission. They then asked Monsignor Stenson to repeat to them the admission made by Father McGennis.
Monsignor Stenson felt that he was bound by confidentiality under canon law and therefore not free to disclose voluntarily what he had learned. I see now how legalistic and unreasonable this position would appear to a person who had been abused.
Priests, like many others, find themselves on occasion bound by obligations of confidentiality, sometimes in extremely distressing cases. This was such a case. Of course, the State always has the right to invite a court to consider whether a claim of confidentiality ought to be upheld. In this instance, because Father McGennis pleaded guilty to the charges, the issue of confidentiality was not put to the test.
It is a source of deep personal distress to me that Monsignor Stenson's position that he could not disclose Father McGennis's admission to the gardaí caused Mrs Collins great pain over a protracted period of time and has undermined her confidence in church authorities. Understandably, it gave the impression that the church was trying to protect a priest who had abused children.
I can only say that this was never the case. Monsignor Stenson was not trying to protect Father McGennis. It is the firm policy of the diocese that priests who commit crimes must be dealt with in accordance with the criminal law.
We readily acknowledge that the common good requires us to support the civil authorities in the enforcement of the law of the land. We also strive to help an offending priest to acknowledge the harm he has caused and to enter an offender treatment programme. I repeat the words of Archbishop Seán Brady last Monday: "The supreme law of the Church is the common good - we are citizens of the State, we follow the laws of the State for the common good."
I end by expressing again, in my own name and Monsignor Stenson's, my heartfelt sorrow for the way in which Mrs Collins has been treated and by saying that I hope that nothing in this attempt to clarify what happened will add to her hurt.