It’s at least eight years too late for Bishop Magee to set things right

A SHIP is at sea.

The ship’s reputation has been built slowly over many years, a reputation that has stood the test of time.

There is a terrible incident one night in which the lives of passengers are put at serious risk by wilful and criminal behaviour among several of the most senior members of the crew.

An inquiry is ordered into the incident following complaints from passengers who have been traumatised by what happened. It is discovered that the crew members were indeed involved in activity that was certain to endanger the ship and its passengers. They had been drinking heavily and had terrorised a number of vulnerable elderly passengers in the course of the affair.

But it is also discovered that the captain of the ship was fast asleep in his cabin during the incident, despite several attempts to wake him.

Worse, it transpires that the captain had indulged these crew members over many years and had allowed a culture to develop that enabled crew to behave in a criminally reckless manner on many occasions without any real discipline.

Complaints by passengers on previous occasions had been ignored. It becomes clear to the inquiry team that this captain regarded passengers as fodder and that his primary concern was for his mates on the crew. He is shown to have no regard for the company’s code of conduct — indeed it is clear that he has treated it with contempt.

What do you think would happen to this captain? Yes, he would be fired. Any attempt by the shipping company to defend the captain, once the incident and the inquiry became public, would result in the destruction of the ship’s reputation and indeed the reputation of the company. Who would want to sail on a ship that was so badly and irresponsibly skippered?

The captain of a ship at sea is no different to an airline pilot, no different to an engine driver on the railway, no different to the head of any large company where product safety is an issue. Imagine a car manufacturer, for instance, who cut corners on safety because all he cared about was profit.

Why should a bishop be any different? Especially in a situation where the offences he largely ignored are far worse than in the fictional example above? Especially when the bishop has helped to create a culture where trusted people felt immune from discipline even when the most serious crimes are alleged against them?

Especially when, in helping to create that culture, the bishop has almost entirely ignored the church’s own rules and code of conduct — indeed, when he has been seen to treat them with contempt? The case of Bishop John Magee threatens to bring shame and scandal on the entire Irish church. The fact that no one can oblige him to resign, or to account in any meaningful way for what he has allowed to happen, makes a mockery of the entire church’s protestations that children matter most.

‘Our Children, Our Church’ is the name of the document that outlines the Catholic Church’s procedures and structures when it comes to child protection. If Bishop Magee is to continue his ministry, that document will have to be renamed. “Our Children Don’t Matter to Our Church” might come to be seen as more appropriate.

Ian Elliott, CEO of the National Board for Safeguarding Children, has written two reports on Cloyne. Both are concise, clear, and well-written.

The first is damning — but the second, which has been presented by the bishop as a progress report, is almost equally so. In language that is both kind and diplomatic it makes clear that the diocese of Cloyne has still not adopted the “safeguarding policy for children that meets the standards expected of it within the church as a whole” recommended by the first report. And that’s six months after the bishop was given Ian Elliott’s first report.

THE second report, about which Bishop Magee seems almost proud, also talks of a “new openness and willingness to engage” with Elliott’s office. It refers to a “greatly improved” attitude towards the HSE and the gardaí. It points out that the new structures so badly needed are still not in place, but seems to accept the bishop’s assurance that work is in hand. And there’s a nice note of warning in the last line of the report — “We look forward to achieving even more in the months ahead”. If the bishop thought Ian Elliott was going away, it’s clear that he isn’t.

And he can’t. His first report into the attitude of the diocese to child protection under Bishop Magee makes it absolutely clear that the bishop had either never read or was not impressed by Our Children, Our Church. Again, the language of that first report is precise and careful. But we know — because Bishop Magee has told us he accepts the report — that the bishop is guilty of the following breaches of the rules set out in the church’s overall guidelines:

* There was a complete failure to listen respectfully to victims of abuse. But “a fundamental principle of Our Children, Our Church is that all personnel working for the church should act in support of parents and guardians in the exercise of their responsibility for the care and formation of their children”.

* There was what amounts to an attempt to hide allegations from the relevant authorities. But Our Children, Our Church says “it is the statutory duty of the civil authorities, not individuals or organisations, to investigate reports of child abuse”. And it goes on to say “a proper balance must be maintained between protecting children and respecting the needs and rights of carers and adults; however, where there is a conflict, the welfare of the child must be paramount”.

* The structures within the diocese were designed and approved by Bishop Magee to protect the diocese — and never operated in any way with the welfare of children and victims as its first priority. Again, it’s possible to quote paragraph after paragraph of Our Children, Our Church that demands the opposite.

* The recording systems used by the diocese were so chaotic that they appeared to be designed to conceal rather than reveal — despite the importance attached to proper and appropriate record-keeping in the church’s guidelines.

* But perhaps above all, for anyone who wanted to demonstrate even a pretence of concern for child protection, was the failure to act. One of the priests involved in allegations of abuse being investigated under the bishop’s authority — Father ‘B’ — was only reported to the gardaí eight years after the first complaint was made against him. During all that time he continued, to all intents and purposes, to act and appear as a priest, with the full public blessing of his bishop.

Against the background of all this, Bishop Magee seems to believe — at least he wants us to believe — that he has a duty to stay on as bishop, to implement structures and procedures he should have implemented years ago. He doesn’t.

In the interests of the victims of abuse in his diocese, and in the interests of his church, he has a duty to go.