Should gardaí question Dublin church authorities about their co-operation with the McGennis child sex abuse investigation , asks Patsy McGarry, Religious Affairs Correspondent
Is it not now imperative that the Garda investigates whether Cardinal Desmond Connell and the then chancellor of the Dublin archdiocese, Mgr Alex Stenson, frustrated and/or colluded to frustrate the criminal investigation into allegations of child sex abuse against Father Paul McGennis in 1995-96?
In his statement of last Saturday the Cardinal admitted that in 1996 "Mgr Stenson felt that he was bound by confidentiality under canon law, and therefore \ not free to disclose voluntarily [to gardaí] what he had learned." One must assume that, as Mgr Stenson's superior, the Cardinal assented to that view.
This meant that had Father McGennis not pleaded guilty to the charges of abusing Ms Marie Collins, he might well have gone free, and all because of the view then held by the Dublin church authorities that they could not confirm to gardaí the priest's admission of guilt.
They hold that view no longer. "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 inquiry should be admitted in evidence against him," the cardinal said.
Why this volte-face if the original position was valid at all? And what would have been the consequences for Ms Collins's health had gardaí been unable to secure sufficient evidence to convict Father McGennis because of the Dublin church authorities' now apparently shaky understanding of "confidentiality".
But apart from simply enforcing the law of the land, there is a more fundamental reason why the Garda should become involved. For far too long, clerical child sex-abuse victims were lone voices crying before a generally sceptical world. Indeed the world was encouraged in its scepticism by many among the very church authorities who have now, belatedly, discovered their errors.
The victims were supported by few, dismissed by many and ostracised by some. In their case it is no longer adequate, simply, that justice be done: it must be seen to be implemented by the civil authorities at every level of society.
This so that the message is sent out, forcefully, that victims of clerical child sex abuse and child sex abuse generally can now feel confident in coming forward with their stories, and that they will be believed. They must be assured that, at long last, society is staunchly on their side, and that it will back them fully, even against the most powerful interests.
This is why Cardinal Connell's statement of Saturday cannot simply be left at that. The intervention of the Garda would also send a powerful signal to all in authority where the handling of this most tragic issue is concerned.
Following his statement on Saturday, the Cardinal has further questions to answer as regards his handling of this case.
In a statement on June 27th, 1997, after McGennis had been convicted, Archbishop Connell said: "The diocese has been co-operating with the gardaí and the health boards and has implemented procedures and protocols to ensure that known or suspected abuse is reported . . ."
The diocese had not co-operated fully (my italics) with gardaí. It is also clear that the diocese did not implement procedures and protocols to ensure that known or suspected abuse was reported, as they should have.
On Saturday, the Cardinal acknowledged that "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 . . ."
In the light of this one, has to wonder about the Cardinal's assertion on Saturday that "it is the firm policy of the diocese that priests who commit crimes must be dealt with in accordance with the criminal law".