Victim dismissed as ‘Ophelia of Hamlet’

A PRIEST charged with interviewing a woman who had been abused for four years by Fr Ronat wrote in notes afterwards that he thought she may be some kind of latterday “Ophelia of Hamlet”.

Notes following the 1995 interview with Ailis show a shocking lack of concern for the effects of abuse on a victim and for the seriousness of the allegations.

The archdeacon pondered whether Ailis was “besetting [tempting}” Fr Ronat: “Might it not be possible that [Ailis] is the Ophelia of Hamlet — sweet bells jangled”.

According to the Commission, Archdeacon Twohig’s report showed no evidence of a genuine investigation and was not “an impartial recording of the facts”.

He was also “largely concerned with providing reasons why this might not be classified as child sexual abuse” and laying the blame at the victim,

Fr Twohig had completed the interview after Bishop Magee asked Monsignor O’Callaghan to commence a canonical investigation into the allegations made by Ailis.

Ailis had complained that she had been repeatedly abused by Fr Ronat between the age of 15 and 19. Neither Bishop Magee or Monsignor O’Callaghan told the gardaí or the HSE about the complaints.

Ailis first made her complaint in 1989 but there were no written records of this meeting with a senior priest. The priest confirmed the meeting, but did not confront Fr Ronat and seven years later he described the abuse to his parish priest as “kissing in the priest’s house”.

In 1995, Ailis went to Bishop Magee as she was still worried for other potential victims. Her family say that she was told by the Bishop that Fr Ronat would “be taken out of circulation”. This did not happen.

It took six months after the visit to Bishop Magee before Fr Ronat was confronted by the diocese. He strenuously denied the allegations saying there was just “cuddling”.

Bishop Magee did nothing more about the complaint, saying that he left it all to Mgr O’Callaghan. The monsignor did not bother arranging to meet Ailis until seven years later. An inter-diocesan advisory committee addressed the complaint in 1995 but, according to the Commission, “was more concerned about causing scandal than about protecting children”.

Bishop Magee claims that after this he told Fr Ronat that he was to be put on restricted ministry.

However, the Commission believes that he was not put on restricted ministry until two years later — when a second and third complaint had emerged.

Another shocking revelation in yesterday’s report concerned a psychologist who completed an assessment on Ailis and Fr Ronat.

He contacted the Commission when it began his investigations in 2009 to alert them to the fact that he had not made a full disclosure in his written notes, as Fr Ronat had asked to see the report in the event of civil litigation.

This, the psychologist said, “altered the context”.

He told the Commission that he had taken Mgr O’Callaghan aside in 1995 and recommended that Fr Ronat be kept away from children and that he should not have any contact with schools or youths.

He also said Fr Ronat needed therapy and that he believed Ailis to be “credible and truthful”.

The report also shows how Fr Ronat called to Ailis’ family home in 2000 threatening defamation after another victim began a civil case.