Martin must be transparent about funds

Dr Martin has not been open about the plan to pay abuse compensation with parish funds, writes Michael Kelly.

THE revelation that the Dublin Archdiocese has turned to the people in the pews to fund compensation for victims of clerical abuse is hardly surprising. Other dioceses have already had to go cap-in-hand to the faithful as a result of the abuse crisis.

What is surprising, however, is that Dublin appears to be going about it in such a cloak-and-dagger fashion and the diocese is only now reluctantly admitting the move after documents obtained by The Irish Catholic newspaper made the plan clear.

Since his appointment to scandal-hit Dublin in 2003, Archbishop Diarmuid Martin promised a new era of accountability and transparency. That transparency does not apparently apply to the use of parishioners’ money to fund compensation.

Dr Martin’s predecessor Cardinal Desmond Connell — who famously explained to the Murphy Commission the shrewd concept of “mental reservation” that allowed senior clerics to evade the truth — had promised in the mid-1990s that the diocese had paid no money to compensate victims of abusive priests. He later admitted that the diocese had given money to Fr Ivan Payne to compensate a victim but held firm in his conviction that the diocese had not actually compensated a victim directly. A fine example of mental reservation.

For the most part, Diarmuid Martin has been different. He publishes regular updates on the number of abuse allegations that have been made and the amount of money paid out in compensation and legal fees.

The latest figures show that, so far, 172 civil actions from people alleging abuse have been taken against 44 priests of the Dublin archdiocese; 117 have been concluded and 55 are ongoing. The cost, so far, to the archdiocese for settlement of claims regarding child sexual abuse by priests is €13.5 million (€9.3m in settlements and €4.2m in legal costs).

Abuse payouts in Dublin have traditionally come from a so-called “general fund” which is made up of bequests and donations the various archbishops of Dublin have received for discretionary use down through the years. That fund is now gone.

In fact, as diocesan officials told the priests’ council in May, the fund is actually in deficit.

The solution? Turn to the parishes. A move in stark contrast with the position of a diocesan spokeswoman who last year said no contributions from parishioners had been used to pay for costs relating to child abuse to date and she did not anticipate that situation arising in the future.

“We have not had to take any money from the baskets,” she said.

While it is impossible to know how big the bill will ultimately be, the diocese has set aside funds which it believes will be adequate she confidently predicted.

What a difference a year makes.

Speaking on RTÉ’s Morning Ireland yesterday, Archbishop Martin confirmed that money from parishes had been transferred to the so-called general fund, which will be used to fund future abuse pay-outs. The fund, he said, “is used for many purposes, not exclusively for covering clerical sexual abuse”.

Rachael English had to ask the archbishop four times about whether or not parishioners’ money is being used to cover abuse compensation before getting the answer that “none of the funds that have come from parishes have been used for that [compensation] as yet”.

“As yet” being the operative phrase, given that the diocese has admitted that the abuse fund is now in deficit and about 55 survivors are awaiting compensation. In fact, minutes of the priests’ council meeting of May 25 show that 40% of the money needed has already come from parish funds. It’s a far cry from the transparency promised by Dr Martin and in stark contrast with the approach of Ferns Bishop Dr Denis Brennan, who made a public appeal to parishioners last year to help fund abuse compensation. At the same time, Bishop Brennan remortgaged his own home to make funds available to abuse survivors.

Other dioceses have insisted that they fund abuse compensation from so-called “discretionary funds” similar to that available up until now to the Dublin archdiocese. Any talk of parish resources being raided has been met with stiff opposition. It’s not that priests and parishioners are opposed to compensation being paid to survivors, on the contrary. It’s the fact that parish coffers would be raided to pay for abuse that was, by and large, facilitated and exacerbated by the negligence of senior bishops who consistently refused to report abusers to the gardaí.

Archbishop Martin has shown unmatchable leadership in the sphere of clerical sexual abuse by going further than many of his colleagues in co-operating with the authorities and reaching out to survivors. He has also courageously faced down elements within the clerical elite who would characterise the abuse crisis as a few bad eggs rather than the devastating exposure of a corrupt culture of cover-up. If he is to retain his street cred among hard-pressed and financially distressed parishioners he will have to answer honestly, genuine questions people have about how their money is being used.

Crucially, if parishioners feel that their collections should not go to abuse compensation, he will have to find the cash elsewhere. A new mortgage on his spacious residence in Drumcondra could certainly go part of the way in making up the millions of euro that will have to be found to compensate those who suffered during such a dark period in the history of the Church on this island.

* Michael Kelly is deputy editor of The Irish Catholic newspaper.