The Catholic Church spent a decade in extended damage-limitation to keep the lid on the Father Naughton abuse case, writes Mary Raftery
In 1995, Mervyn Rundle was 20 years old and had decided to break his silence. He was determined to bring the priest who had destroyed his life to justice. He and his parents asked to meet the Archbishop of Dublin, Desmond Connell.
At that 1995 meeting, Dr Connell was anxious to know if the Rundles were going to report child-abusing priest Father Thomas Naughton to the gardaí. As soon as the archbishop discovered that Mervyn was about to make a formal police complaint, the archdiocese itself contacted the gardaí to report the existence of a complaint against Father Naughton.
The first warning that Father Naughton was a danger to children was given to the Dublin Archdiocese as far back as 1983, a full 15 years prior to his conviction in 1998 in the courts for child sexual abuse.
Dr Donal Murray was then an auxiliary bishop of Dublin. He is now Bishop of Limerick and one of those mentioned as a likely successor to the current Archbishop of Dublin, Cardinal Connell.
During September 1983, two men from Valleymount in Wicklow called to see Dr Murray, telling him that they were worried about local curate Father Naughton being too close to the altar boys. While they were not specific, it was clear that they were highly anxious. Dr Murray then talked to the parish priest of Valleymount, Father Maurice Dufficy, who assured him that there was nothing wrong.
Dr Murray summoned Father Naughton to his house shortly afterwards. Father Naughton denied everything, but Dr Murray warned him to be careful.
Significantly at this time, Dr Murray considered the matter sufficiently grave that he reported it to his superior, the then Archbishop of Dublin, Dr Dermot Ryan.
However, no further action was taken until another complaint was made in the spring of 1984, some six months later. Local parishioner John Brennan told the Valleymount parish priest that Father Naughton was molesting children. Almost immediately, Father Naughton was transferred.
He was moved to Donnycarney parish on Dublin's north side. Archbishop Dermot Ryan personally thanked him for what he called his dedicated work as a curate in Valleymount, and went on to pray God's blessing on a fruitful priestly ministry in his new parish. Father Naughton was not told why he had been transferred. The matter of child abuse was not raised.
Shortly after his arrival in Donnycarney, Father Naughton selected his next victim. This was 10-year-old altar boy Mervyn Rundle. Despite his well-known track record in Valleymount, Father Naughton had been placed in charge of the altar boys in Donnycarney.
He abused young Mervyn for several months before the child told his parents in November 1985. His father, also called Mervyn Rundle, went immediately to Archbishop's House in Drumcondra to complain to Monsignor Alex Stenson, then Chancellor (or Chief Administrator) of the Dublin archdiocese. The chancellor asked to interview the child Mervyn on his own, and accused him of telling lies.
The monsignor was informed at this meeting of other named families with children who were also being abused by Father Naughton. However, none of this was pursued by church authorities.
The day after his meeting with the Rundle family, Monsignor Stenson, who is currently parish priest of Maynooth, informed the then Archbishop, Dr Kevin McNamara, that they had a problem. Monsignor Stenson then confronted Father Naughton with the allegations. Father Naughton categorically denied ever having abused a child, but did admit to what he called horseplay with some of the altar boys, and said that this may have been misinterpreted.
Father Naughton also told Monsignor Stenson that Bishop Donal Murray had raised an incident with him in Valleymount. Father Naughton said that Bishop Murray had told him not to worry as cranks often made allegations. Father Naughton said that he felt that the matter was not serious as Bishop Murray had only briefly discussed it.
Father Naughton returned to his parish and all was quiet.
The next move came in fact from Father Naughton himself. By 10th December 1985, two weeks after his initial denial, he contacted Monsignor Stenson and admitted to abusing young Mervyn Rundle. He told the monsignor that this may have happened perhaps six times. This admission to Monsignor Stenson of multiple abuse of Mervyn is particularly significant at this point. Father Naughton was later to lie about this to a church-appointed psychiatrist.
Monsignor Stenson's only recommendation to Father Naughton was to advise him to take a short break for a few days, and Father Naughton then returned to Donnycarney parish.
A month later, Monsignor Stenson again contacted Father Naughton, who remained active in Donnycarney, where of course he had abused Mervyn Rundle. Naughton informed the monsignor that as some of the dust had now settled, he was happy to remain in Donnycarney. The Rundle family continued to see Father Naughton still regularly saying Mass in their parish despite his self-confessed criminal sexual assault on 10-year-old Mervyn.
Monsignor Stenson arranged for Father Naughton to see a psychiatrist.
The psychiatrist was asked by the church to assess the danger posed by Father Naughton, but was deliberately kept in the dark about the extent of his abuse.
The psychiatrist was not told the extent of church knowledge of the paedophile activities of Father Naughton.
The only information provided to the psychiatrist came from Father Naughton himself, and, not for the first time, Father Naughton blatantly lied. He told the psychiatrist that there had been only one isolated case of child abuse involving himself. This was in spite of the fact that Naughton had already admitted to Monsignor Stenson that he had abused young Mervyn on six occasions.
On the basis of this inaccurate information, the psychiatrist told the archdiocese that he felt that this was not a serious problem. However, he did made it very clear that he was basing his judgment on Father Naughton's own statement that there had been only a single isolated incident. He also said that he presumed that Monsignor Stenson had no evidence to the contrary.
Monsignor Stenson told the Archbishop, Dr Kevin McNamara, that the medical report on Father Naughton was encouraging, but was based on Father Naughton's account. He also asked the archbishop if the psychiatrist might wish to alter his report and treatment if the full extent of Father Naughton's problems were known.
A further intriguing point emerges. The psychiatrist told Monsignor Stenson that he would be aware they have had other cases of paedophile priests, cases in which there has been a long history of similar episodes.
The only cases in the public domain that were known to the archdiocese at the time are those where it has been claimed that the abuse was of a single victim, and of short duration. These are the cases of Father Paul McGennis (admission of abuse in 1960), Father Patrick Hughes (admission of abuse in 1974), Father Ivan Payne (admission of abuse in 1982) and Father Bill Carney (convicted of child abuse in 1984). The suggestion of other cases with long histories appears to indicate either the existence of a number of additional cases not yet in the public domain, or that those cases we already know about are not as limited as we have been led by church authorities to believe.
Back in Archbishop's House in 1986, they received a shock in early February. Monsignor Stenson received a devastating letter from a family friend of the Rundles in Donnycarney. At the request of the family, this friend had attended some of the earlier meetings with the archdiocese and was himself highly active within the church. However, his letter to the chancellor was damning.
"The very least that was expected was that the priest would have been removed from the parish. Today, 11 weeks later, the priest is still in the parish," he wrote. "This goes against all the medical information that I have . . . Both Dr McNamara and you knew about the child abuse and did what appears to be nothing. I would also have to question the matter of other priests who 'were' involved in child abuse and who you claim were treated.
"The whole thing takes on very sinister tones." He added that the only reason Archbishop's House was informed "was to allow you to deal with the matter with as little fuss as possible. In this we were wrong not to have contacted the gardaí first." However, at the time, the Rundle family were not prepared to expose young Mervyn to the rigours of a criminal court case.
Monsignor Stenson's response to this letter was summarily to express his appreciation that what he described as unnecessary publicity for all parties had been avoided.
Then, on 13th February 1986, a local Donnycarney curate arrived into the chancellor's office with detailed information of a further allegation of child sexual abuse against Father Naughton, from another Donnycarney family.
This news prompted Chancellor Stenson to communicate directly with the Archbishop (Dr McNamara), saying that they might need to change their plans with regard to the Father Naughton case. He referred to the damning letter from the Rundle family friend, mentioning that this man was pushing the Rundles to make trouble, and to the new allegation against Father Naughton. The monsignor told the archbishop that he proposed to meet Mervyn Rundle senior to defuse the situation.
This meeting happened a week later, and both of young Mervyn's parents, Rose and Mervyn senior, attended. The monsignor felt that Mervyn senior was a good Catholic and was pleased with the meeting. However, he felt that Rose was very upset, was convinced that her son was not the only victim, was adamant that Father Naughton should not be allowed work in any parish. He felt that Rose needed a certain amount of counselling. He told the Rundle parents that if any further concrete information emerged, then he would be happy to act on it.
Throughout this, Father Naughton continued to deny abusing anyone other than Mervyn Rundle. However, in early March 1986 he requested to be transferred to another parish. At a meeting at the end of March, the Dublin auxiliary bishops discussed his case, and decided that he should be asked to attend a residential therapeutic course.
Father Naughton remained a priest of Donnycarney parish until mid-July. For an extraordinary seven months, church authorities had allowed a self-confessed paedophile to remain in the same parish with his child victims.
Eventually in August 1986, Naughton was sent to a therapeutic course at Stroud in England run by the Servants of the Paraclete, a religious order specialising in dealing with troubled priests.
On 21 July, they had written to Eamonn Walsh (now Bishop of Ferns, then secretary to the archbishop) asking him for some details concerning Father Naughton. They received no reply from him.
They wrote again two weeks later, this time directly to the archbishop, saying that Father Naughton had arrived and if someone could please tell them why he had been sent there. Finally, towards the end of August, with Naughton already at Stroud for three weeks, those responsible for his therapy received their first information from Dublin as to why he had been sent to them.
The therapists at Stroud remained essentially negative about his progress. They felt that he was not in touch with the gravity of his situation, that he had an aloof, distant, bland quality. They also said that it was difficult for them to believe that the problem had surfaced recently.
Later, in the autumn of 1986, they became a little more optimistic, but they still had serious reservations. Despite this, Father Naughton was judged fit for ministry, on condition that he continue with counselling and that his future parish priest be aware of his problems.
In December 1986, Father Naughton was assigned to Ringsend parish. Within months he had again targeted new victims, sexually abusing at least two young altar boys.
He was left there for two full years before finally being removed from active ministry and returned to the Kiltegan Fathers in Wicklow, where he is supposed to be under permanent supervision.
In 1996, Mervyn Rundle initiated his civil case, which finally concluded last Tuesday, after a seven-year battle.
The Catholic Church had waited 10 years before reporting what it knew to be a serious criminal offence by one of its priests.
The decade spent by the Dublin archdiocese in an extended exercise in damage limitation had up to that point kept the lid on the Naughton case.
During their investigation of Father Naughton, the gardaí were not told by Cardinal Connell that the archdiocese had been aware for the previous 10 years that Naughton had made an internal admission of child sexual abuse.
Mervyn Rundle's civil case is by far the most significant so far in the legal battle of victims of child sexual abuse against the Catholic Church in Ireland.
Mary Raftery produced and directed the recent RTÉ Prime Time documentary Cardinal Secrets on clerical child sexual abuse in the Dublin archdiocese. She also produced the documentary series States of Fear, and is co-author with Dr Eoin O'Sullivan of Suffer the Little Children - the Inside Story of Ireland's Industrial Schools (New Island Books, 1999)