FRANK MURPHY,
Madam, - The Rundle case, extensively reported and commented on in your newspaper, illustrates once again how badly Church authorities handled allegations of criminal sexual assault by clerics. However, it is important to be clear as to the nature of the fault, so that the criticism may be accurate. Otherwise, considered criticism may appear to historians as an exercise in Church-bashing.
First, it should be noted that most of the child sexual assault offences currently coming to light date from the 1980s or earlier, a time when it was not generally understood (and not just by bishops) that the person who assaulted a child once was very likely if unchecked to do so again.
Accordingly, the primary fault of bishops was in not grasping the seriously criminal nature of such actions, regardless of whether they were repeated, and failing to take tough disciplinary and canonical measures against such priests. Let us hope that bishops realise that nothing less than a "zero tolerance" policy is expected by the laity.
Third, Mary Raftery (January 30th) criticises the bishops for not having reported it to the Garda. But her account, and the report in your newspaper on the previous day, make clear that the parents of Mervyn Rundle did not report it to the Garda either. Why didn't they? That question could be asked in all those cases which came to light only after many years, for many other parents seem to have been similarly silent. It is possible that in some cases bishops had some reason for thinking that the parents' not reporting the matter to the police was indicative of a wish that it not be made public in that way? Nobody wants to criticise parents; bishops, by contrast, are fair game. But it is unfair (in fact, given the sharpness of the media criticism of the Church, it is bizarre) to hold clergy to a higher standard of care for children than that to which their parents are to be held. - Yours, etc.,
FRANK MURPHY,
Old Quarry,
Dalkey Avenue,
Dalkey,
Co Dublin.