The word ‘inexcusable’ in the Murphy report sealed the fate of the bishop of Limerick
THERE WAS an inevitability about yesterday’s announcement by Bishop Donal Murray and the Vatican. His resignation was not in doubt following publication of the Murphy report.
The only uncertainty was when it would happen.
One word in the Murphy report sealed Bishop Murray’s fate and made it impossible for him to remain on as Bishop of Limerick. That word was “inexcusable”.
It was the report’s description of Bishop Murray’s handling of an allegation about Fr Tom Naughton (coincidentally jailed for a second time for child sex abuse at Wicklow Circuit Court in Bray on Wednesday) when an auxiliary bishop in Dublin.
Concerns about the priest were expressed in 1983 by parents at Valleymount Co Wicklow, where Naughton was then curate. These concerns were conveyed to Bishop Murray by those parents, who told the Murphy commission the bishop dismissed them.
In 1984 Naughton was moved to Donnycarney where he abused more children. It was when this abuse came to the attention of church authorities in 1985 and Bishop Murray failed to reinvestigate what had gone on in Valleymount that the commission found it “inexcusable”.
Seeing the word “inexcusable” when reading the Murphy report on the day of its publication, November 26th last, most recognised it as the end for Murray’s tenure in Limerick. So when it was announced that he was to hold a press conference in Limerick that afternoon it was assumed by those less familiar with Church ways that he was planning to announce his resignation there and then.
However instead of resigning, he expressed his “deepest regret” over the abuse of children in Dublin and insisted he did not intend to resign. He went on to put up a doughty defence of his time as an auxiliary bishop in Dublin from 1982 to 1996 on several occasions.
However, when he delivered the homily at Mass in St Joseph’s, Limerick, the following Sunday, November 29th, his stance had begun to soften. His resignation was a question of whether his presence was “ a help or a hindrance to the diocese”.
Two brother bishops spoke in his favour. Bishop John Kirby of Clonfert said he did not support calls on Murray to resign. Bishop Willie Walsh of Killaloe warned against calls for resignation and said they were based on a “gross misreading” of certain parts of the Murphy report.
But pressure to go was increasing. Speaking on BBC Radio Ulster’s Sunday Sequence programme on November 29th Bishop of Dromore John McAreavey said he would resign if he found himself in the position where his “ability to deal with these matters with credibility and integrity” was challenged
That night on RTÉ’s The Week in Politics Limerick TD and Minister for Defence Willie O’Dea said Bishop Murray “will make the appropriate decision”.
We now know that on Tuesday December 1st Bishop Murray had decided to resign. That was the day he told the vicars general of his diocese he intended doing so.
That same Tuesday night Archbishop of Dublin Diarmuid Martin went on Prime Time in unequivocal mood. He was not happy with the response of bishops named in the Murphy report, he said. “I believe that the people of the archdiocese of Dublin, where this abuse took place, have a right to have these questions addressed today.”
He added: “Everybody has to stand up and accept the responsibility for what they did.”
His point was clear. Maybe that is why yesterday Bishop Murray only thanked Cardinal Brady in his statement.
The cardinal “was unfailingly supportive and helpful to him during this time”, he said.
It might also explain why Cardinal Brady was so sure when he said on Saturday, December 5th, “Im confident that Bishop Donal will do the right thing.” It seems clear now that he knew Bishop Murray had by then already decided to resign.
Bishop Murray, as we know, flew to Rome on Sunday evening, December 6th, and offered his resignation at the Congregation for Bishops the following day. One week later, last Monday, he was told it had been accepted.
Yesterday, three weeks to the day following publication of the Murphy report, it was announced. What remains a mystery is why something which was decided 16 days beforehand should have taken so long to be made public?