Cloyne abuse scandal - Bishop must resign or be removed

JOHN MAGEE has been bishop of the Diocese of Cloyne since 1987 and in those 21 years he has seen his, and our, world change utterly.

He was conferred bishop at a time when the position of the Catholic Church in Ireland was all but unassailable and unquestionable. Though less than a lifetime ago, his appointment, after serving two popes in the highest capacities, was made in a different, less questioning and more innocent world.

However, none of these historical circumstances are powerful enough to save him from the conclusions of the report written by Ian Elliott, chief executive officer of the Catholic Church’s National Board for the Safeguarding of Children (NBSC).

Neither are they sufficient to save him from the charge that he actively obstructed investigations into claims of child sexual abuse made against priests under the charge of his diocese.

Before discussing Mr Elliott’s findings, which were released by Bishop Magee yesterday, it must be pointed out that he is an agent of the Catholic Church and his findings cannot be dismissed as biased or avoidable.

One of Mr Elliott’s conclusions was that children “have been placed at risk of harm... through the inability of that diocese to respond appropriately... It failed to act effectively to limit the access to children by individuals against whom a credible complaint of child sexual abuse was made”.

In any man’s language that means that the diocese, headed by Bishop Magee, did not do what they should have done to protect innocent and vulnerable children.

This, despite the fact that the great majority of priests in the diocese are beyond reproach and enhance the communities they serve.

It chose to ignore an active, identified evil by failing to confront colleagues who, it is believed, transgressed in the most awful way. It did not, despite all sorts of papal assurances, do all it could to protect children in its orbit. The diocese turned a blind eye to warnings about the most violent, the most hideous and the most appalling attacks on children by clerics in its charge. It put the interests of the Catholic Church before the dreadful reality faced by victims of paedophile clerics. It put the interests of the Catholic Church before the vulnerable and abused.

And still, no matter how the obligations of charity and restraint call, there is no easy way to say it. The bishop was given plausible evidence of appalling behaviour but he did nothing. Not only did he turn a blind eye to dreadful claims, he obstructed Mr Elliott’s inquiry and seemingly hoped that the whole sorry affair would just go away. He dismissed the wrongs done to these children to protect deviant priests. He neither acted with faith, provided hope, nor afforded charity.

Under his auspices the Catholic Diocese of Cloyne failed to act effectively to limit the access to children by individuals against whom a “credible” complaint of child sexual abuse was made.

It is not good enough for Bishop Magee to say that he has accepted Mr Elliott’s report, and is now implementing its recommendations, while at the same time refusing to acknowledge that his failures are the foundations on which this report is built.

His position is no longer tenable. He must resign.

That he has not already done so is a further indictment of his position. That he remains in office suggests that he imagines himself unaccountable and somehow beyond all sorts of normal censure and accountability.

Ironically, by refusing to accept the obvious, he continues to damage the very institution he has done so much wrong to protect.

Pope Benedict has made reassuring and uplifting commitments in this area and has clearly said that the Catholic Church will not shelter or in any way protect anyone involved in the abuse of young people.

If these statements are to have any worth they must have an impact in Cloyne. If Bishop Magee does not resign with what remains of his dignity, then he must be dismissed. There simply is no alternative.

By staying in office he neither serves the future of the Church to which he has dedicated his life, the principles advanced by the Pope Benedict or the standards we all expect of each other.

The junior minister Barry Andrews may, in time, come to look on this as a sorry episode in his career. He was given Mr Elliott’s report last July yet he chose to hide behind formalities and failed to discharge his duties. Just as John Magee was aware of the import of the report so was Barry Andrews. He too has questions to answer.