After previous refusals, Senator Rónán Mullen, formerly spokesman for Cardinal Desmond Connell, partially answers questions on the Murphy report
SENATOR RÓNÁN Mullen has refused to answer over half of a list of questions sent to him by The Irish Timesconcerning findings in the Murphy report.
He had previously refused to answer any questions from the newspaper over the phone, insisting they be e-mailed to him before he would reply.
Asked why he had not responded to the Murphy report, published three weeks previously on November 26th, while he found it possible to issue a statement calling for legislation to protect the human embryo within hours of last Monday's Supreme Court judgment in the Roche v Roche case, he said he had spoken on the Murphy report in the Seanad on December 1st and in a Newstalkradio interview last Sunday.
Mr Mullen, who was spokesman for Cardinal Desmond Connell, then archbishop of Dublin, between 1996 and 2001, said he would answer five of the questions submitted to him by The Irish Timesas they were in the public interest, he said.
The remaining seven “relate to my personal opinions and my communication of them”, he added.
In November 1995 Cardinal Connell made files available to gardaí concerning allegations of clerical child sex abuse involving 17 priests. Addressing this, the Murphy report established that “at that time there was knowledge within the archdiocese of at least 28 priests against whom there had been complaints”.
The report made no reference to the diocese’s communications office.
The questions and Mr Mullen’s replies are below:
In your period working at the communications office in Archbishop’s House were you aware of any allegations of clerical child sex abuse which were not reported to the gardaí or other relevant statutory authorities?
No. I started sometime in March 1996 and it was always my understanding that all religious orders and dioceses had by then reported and were continuing to report all cases where they had knowledge or suspicion of abuse, in accordance with the Green Book [ie the bishops guidelines on child sex abuse cases, also known as the Framework Document].
If so, did you report any such cases to the gardaí and/or relevant authorities yourself?
Question doesn’t arise (see answer to question 1).
Were you aware of a cover-up at Archbishop’s House where the handling of clerical child sex abuse allegations were concerned and as found to be the case by the Murphy report?
No. But I would have got to know from what was in the public domain that the church had not reported allegations and cases of abuse to the civil authorities in the past. I wished they had.
If so, did you do anything about this?
Question doesn’t arise (see answer to question 3).
Did you ever employ the stratagem of mental reservation in your dealings with media, abuse victims, or statutory authorities while working at the same communications office, then or since then?
No, of course not, and I had never even heard of the concept of mental reservation until I saw it in the report recently.
The seven questions Mr Mullen did not answer are as follows:
The Murphy report was published on November 26th last. Almost three weeks have passed and you have made no response to its findings.
Why is this?
Do you believe your own credibility on other issues may have been affected by this prolonged silence from one known to have a well-publicised interest in issues of importance to Catholics?
What are your reflections on the findings of the Murphy report that there was a cover-up at Archbishop’s House?
What are your reflections on the findings of the Murphy report where Cardinal Connell is concerned?
What are your reflections on the findings of the Murphy report where the bishops named in the report are concerned?
Do you believe the serving bishops named in the Murphy report should resign?
Where to from here for Catholicism in Ireland?
In his response, Mr Mullen also supplied details of what he had said in the Seanad on the Murphy report on December 1st.
“These are heavy days for people of goodwill at all levels of the Catholic Church and outside it because of the abuse and the fact that the handling of these cases was characterised by massive incompetence, and sometimes more than that, and ineptitude farther back in the past.
“Like Senator O’Sullivan, I have had the impression in recent days that people who had very little concern about child protection issues were acting as though they had won an All-Ireland final and taking the opportunity to pursue separate agendas. I hope the church would not fear a national audit. I believe in the maxim ‘the truth will set you free’.
“When we hear the full story of abuse in the church, this will be a better society for it and we will, I hope, continue to examine abuses across society. The 96 per cent of cases outside the church context should be of as much interest to us.
“I have great respect for Senator O’Toole but, with the best will in the world, he may have caused a misunderstanding about a possible conflict of interest in respect of the role of bishops. There is a designated liaison person in each school who must contact the HSE where an allegation is made. By the time the patron is notified, the train of accountability has left the station.
“It is interesting to know that
if a chaplain is involved, we find that diocesan guidelines are generally even more strict. If the person against whom an allegation is made is a chaplain, that person is gone straight away and much quicker than if he was a lay teacher.
“The Catholic Primary School Management Association has been pushing for a review of the Children First guidelines, published nine years ago and for which the Ferns report called, but this has still not happened. This must be part of the debate also.”
