McNamara handled abuse complaints ‘badly’

ARCHBISHOP KEVIN McNamara was one of four archbishops who handled child sex abuse complaints “badly”, according to the Commission of Investigation into the Catholic Archdiocese of Dublin (Murphy Report).

The report revealed that the deceased Newmarket-on-Fergus native, who was seriously ill when he was appointed as Archbishop of Dublin in 1984, did not report his knowledge of abuse to gardaí during his 1985-1987 tenure.
In fact, the commission found that he restored priestly duties to Fr William Carney in 1986, despite his having pleaded guilty to charges of child sex abuse in 1983 and despite continuing suspicions about him in relation to other children.
The report stated that Archbishop McNamara failed to ensure that Fr Carney obeyed instructions and allowed him, in effect, to flout the wishes of his superiors.
After initially suspending Fr Carney in April 1985, the archbishop agreed to allow him back if he attended a hospital in Waterford for alcohol treatment, though the priest did not have a drink problem. The problem was that the priest, who initially wanted to foster children, was a serial abuser.
Fr Carney refused to attend a therapeutic facility and mentioned the possibility of going to Australia or challenging the allegations made against him.
Shortly after that proposal, Archbishop McNamara asked Monsignor Stenson to investigate the possibility of withdrawing Fr Carney’s faculties in order to put pressure on him to reconsider his position and to accept the offer of help in a therapeutic facility.
On April 1985, Archbishop McNamara wrote to Fr Carney informing him that he was withdrawing his diocesan faculties. Fr Carney was now effectively suspended but the report noted there did not seem to be anyone checking what he was doing or where he was living. There was no evidence that other priests were informed of his changed status.
In September, Archbishop McNamara offered Fr Carney the option of going to Belmont Park Hospital, Waterford under the care of Dr Lane O’Kelly, which he accepted. This was a psychiatric hospital that provided treatment for alcohol problems but there was no evidence that it had any expertise in child sexual abuse.
In November, Fr Carney discharged himself from hospital and wrote a long letter to the archbishop seeking clarification about his continuance in hospital and his prospects of operating as a priest again.
The archbishop made it clear that he was to return to hospital and follow the doctor’s orders. In December, Fr Carney was allowed to say mass but did not yet have all his faculties restored.
In January 1986, Fr Carey was released from hospital on a trial basis. His faculties were restored on condition that he continue to attend Dr Lane O’Kelly at monthly intervals and that he avoid areas on the north side of the city.
After treatment, he was appointed to the parish of Clogher Road. He lived alone and children frequented his house and stayed overnight. He also took children swimming. Further complaints were made against him. When Fr Carney was appointed to the parish of Clogher Road, the parish priest, Fr James Kelly issued a strong letter of protest.
The Dublin Archdiocese Report stated, “Fr Carney’s ease of access to, and his degree of involvement with, children in care was extraordinary. He was able to take children to his home for weekends whenever he wanted and this was encouraged by the authorities.
“While it may be understandable that the authorities in the homes did not even contemplate the possibility of sexual abuse, there is no evidence that anyone in authority asked basic questions relating to the care and safety of children, such as who was going to look after the children while he was saying mass.
“There is no evidence of any attempt at serious management of Fr Carney as the problems unfolded. There was no one in the Archdiocese who was in charge of monitoring him. No one person had full knowledge of the extent of the problem.
“Even if the Church’s main intention was to avoid scandal, the complete lack of competence in handling Fr Carney is remarkable,” stated the report.
It was also critical of Archbishop McNamara’s and his auxiliary bishops’ handling of complaints against Fr Tom Naughton for not carrying out further investigations into allegations.
“The archdiocesan authorities were wrong not to inform all priests in Ringsend that there had been a serious complaint about Fr Naughton while he worked in Donnycarney.
“Overall, in their handling of the complaints against Fr Naughton, archdiocesan authorities, particularly Bishop Murray, the Valleymount parish priest and Archbishops Ryan and McNamara let down those families who, because they were good Catholics, trusted the Church to do something about this man.”
The report also stated that Archbishop McNamara was slow to respond to a complaint from a family, despite the priest admitting the sexual abuse.
“As a result, Fr Naughton was allowed to continue his abusive behaviour for several years thereby severely damaging more victims. It was only when they went to the gardaí that they finally received satisfaction,” the report stated.
Dr McNamara, the report says, also promoted Fr Ivan Payne, later convicted of abuse, to the position of vice-officialis of the Marriage Tribunal despite the previous refusal of Archbishop Dermot Ryan to do so.
Dr McNamara was the first archbishop to see the need for insurance cover against abuse claims.
The report notes, “The archbishop’s understanding of the need for insurance came from events much closer to home than the USA. At this time, the archdiocese had knowledge of approximately 20 priests against whom allegations of child sexual abuse had been made.”