IRISH bishop Dr Donal Murray resigned today, following severe criticism of his handling of child sex abuse allegations.
Dr Donal Murray
The Murphy report on abuse by priests in the Dublin Archdiocese found Donal Murray’s handling of one case while an auxiliary bishop in the 1980s was “inexcusable”.
The BBC reports that the Pope had accepted his resignation as bishop of Limerick.
Dr Murray said:
I know full well my resignation cannot undo the pain that survivors of abuse have suffered in the past and continue to suffer each day.
The Murphy report into abuse in the Dublin Archdiocese from 1975 to 2004 was highly critical of the Catholic church hierarchy’s handling of priests suspected of being child abusers. It said many bishops were more concerned with preserving the reputation of the church rather than protecting children.
It found that during Dr Murray’s time as an auxiliary bishop in Dublin from 1982 to 1996, he was dismissive of complaints about a priest who went on to abuse again.
Dr Murray said today he had taken time to study the report in full before deciding to resign.
I humbly apologise once again to all who were abused as little children. To all survivors of abuse, I repeat that my primary concern is to assist in every way that I can on their journey towards finding closure and serenity.
I asked the Holy Father to allow me to resign and to appoint a new bishop to the diocese because I believe that my presence will create difficulties for some of the survivors who must have first place in our thoughts and prayers.
Murray’s resignation is unlikely to satisfy survivors of clerical abuse. According to this report, a week ago Maeve Lewis, head of sexual abuse support group One in Four, said it was hoped the Pope might apologise for the culture of secrecy and cover-up by Catholic Church authorities documented by the Murphy Report and that he might accept responsibility for his role in the creation of that culture.
Pope Ratzinger is looking a little hunted these days
To say that he is disturbed and outraged by the accounts of clerical abuse is disingenuous at the very least, given that the files of the clerical sex abusers have been routinely sent to the Vatican over the years.
He must have been aware of the extent of the problem when, as Cardinal Ratzinger, he presided over the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith.
She said the Pope appeared to be trying to put all the blame on the individual offending priests rather than accepting responsibility for the role of the Church authorities in recklessly endangering children.
The Murphy report found that Murray did not deal properly with the suspicions and concerns that were expressed to him in relation to one priest, Fr Tom Naughton in 1983.
A short time later, factual evidence of Naughton’s abusing emerged in another parish.
The Murphy report found Bishop Murray’s failure to reinvestigate the earlier suspicions was “inexcusable”.
In May 1998, Naughton pleaded guilty to six counts of indecently assaulting three boys in 1985 and 1986. He was jailed for three years, reduced on appeal to two-and-a-half years.
On Wednesday, Naughton was jailed again – this time for three years for sexually abusing an altar boy between 1982 and 1984.
Hat tip: Marcus
The Freethinker was founded in 1881 by GW Foote, an outspoken critic of religion. After the publication of 
December 17th, 2009 at 9:07 pm
The courts in Ireland will do nothing, they are hand in hand with the clergy. If I had a child and that child had been abused, I’d happily strangle one of those bastards. What’s the worst, 5 – 10 years for protecting my child? No problem. Lead the way.
December 17th, 2009 at 9:30 pm
What bugs me most of all, if I remember what I’ve read correctly, is not that a 1962 church document into which Ratzinger had a lot of input told the clergy in effect not to tell the cops, but to send an account to Rome, and keep it quiet. Which continued, if memory serves, till 1982, when they realised that the Vatican was bein over-whelmed with cases (and perhaps that things, at that time, were beginning to come out).
It is that the complainants were told that they must keep it quiet, too, on pain of excommunication that strikes me as worst of all.
When a kid has been physically and/or sexually abused, that is bad enough, that their complains were often treated with contempt or accusations of lying might be even worse, but worst of all, to my mind, is to threaten someone who has been indoctrinated from a young age that they will, in effect, go to eternal damnation if they tell anyone about it, is even worse.
I cannot see anything more offensive than to both physically, psychologically, and, insofar as the word means anything, spiritually damage children with the threat of excommunication.
Not a word about excommunicating the perpetrators, of course.
Avoid scandal – well, public scandal, at any cost, with the vast bulk of the cost falling on abused kids. Words fail.
Ratzinger is an evil man. A bishop falls on his sword – but so should Ratzinger. Primarily that whole culture was his fault.
What was that phrase again? Mental Reservation. It is mental reservation, I think, that stops him and the bishops from putting the blame where it belongs, which, even more than the original perpetrators, belongs to the current Pope.
An evil man!!
ETA If any catholics are horrified by this, especially Irish ones, please head off to the countmeout website linked to at this site, and show your disapproval either (preferably) by leaving the RCC, or sending an email to your diocese.
David B
December 17th, 2009 at 10:29 pm
The rational part of me wants the vile, organised crime syndicate that is the catholic church broken up and its lieutenants imprisoned. The irrational in me would do a Henry VIII and have their churches razed to the ground and their leaders hung.
December 17th, 2009 at 11:45 pm
Just slightly off topic, but did you know the Jehovahs witnesses have almost the exact same policy on covering up child abuse as the catholic church?
December 18th, 2009 at 12:20 am
Reply to comment 4
I didn’t know it, but it wouldn’t surprise me.
Do you know if de jure or de facto the catholic church follows the same sort of disfellowship line as the JWs concerning those who decide to leave?
The RCC certainly wasn’t kind to those who brought up accusations of child abuse, even those who remained indoctrinated.
David B
December 18th, 2009 at 4:22 am
As a non-practicing ex-catholic I can’t for the life of me see why everyone always refer to Ratzinger as “Holy Father.”!!!! What in hell’s name is holy about him!!!! I just look at his face and I cringe! Just refer to him as Ratzinger please. Why are there so many people who continue to look at this man with awe and what amounts to adoration and fall on their knees for his blessing as if it will bring them some supernatural benefit!!!!! It escapes me…..and yet, when I was younger I believed all that crap they fed us but if I an now see through it why are so many people so gullible!!! Well, I figure that if some people can send millions to Anal Roberts who saw a 900 foot Jesus what can you expect from someone they believe to be a living god! Shades of Startreck!!
December 18th, 2009 at 10:24 am
David B, I don’t know much of the details regarding the catholic church policy, I was basing my post on what is stated above. The covering up and threatening plaintiffs with excommunication or disfellowshipping etc is the same though.
The JW’s have an interesting policy whereby you cannot make an accusation without having two witnessess. They also have files on all members and keep track of sex abusers, but they instruct the elders not to pass this information on to the police, even or perhaps especially, if new accusations arise.
If you are interested more info can be found at silentlambs.org.
December 18th, 2009 at 11:35 am
Thanks for that, Serai.
The silentlambs website is not the easiest to read.
It does make it clear, though, that the JWs also cover things up to avoid public scandal about the church, does not report offences to the authorities, and will disfellow those who do make things public while not taking similar action against abusers.
Which seems very similar to the Catholic policy.
What is it about religion that makes people act immorally?
David B
December 18th, 2009 at 12:09 pm
Yes the silentlambs site could do with an overhaul, but as you can see the policies are very similar. I brought up the JW’s as I have some personal experience with them and their way of doing things.
As for your question, I think I can answer that to a degree at least. I think it is because you are encouraged to develop a very binary view as a member of a religion. Everything within the church is to be seen as ‘good’ and everything outside is ‘bad’. So when someone comes along and says something within the church is ‘bad’, they must be either lying or mistaken, to accept otherwise is to accept that your comfortable binary worldview is wrong.
Of course that’s an over simplification, but I think it does summarise nicely how the mindset works.
December 18th, 2009 at 7:18 pm
The following SUMMARIES OF OVER 1400 JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES CRIMINAL and CIVIL COURT CASES will provide the BEST and MOST ACCURATE info about Jehovah’s Witnesses, their beliefs, and how they ACTUALLY practice such day to day.
The following website summarizes 900 court cases and lawsuits affecting children of Jehovah’s Witness Parents, including 400 cases where the JW Parents refused to consent to life-saving blood transfusions for their dying children, as well as nearly 400 CRIMINAL cases — most involving MURDERS:
DIVORCE, BLOOD TRANSFUSIONS, AND OTHER LEGAL ISSUES AFFECTING CHILDREN OF JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES
http://jwdivorces.bravehost.com
The following website summarizes over 500 lawsuits filed by Jehovah’s Witnesses against their Employers, incidents involving problem JW Employees, and other secret JW “history” court cases:
EMPLOYMENT ISSUES UNIQUE TO JEHOVAH’S WITNESS EMPLOYEES
http://jwemployees.bravehost.com
December 19th, 2009 at 5:15 pm
I imagine that the sexual abuse of children goes on everywhere priests and monks are to be found. Buddhist monasteries are full of very young children. Many poor parents get rid of their children this way. Buddhist monks also recuperate orphans and difficult kids claiming to offer them a better life. I Know nothing about about the Russian/Greek Orthodox Churches but if their priests are celibate there will certainly be abusers among them.
December 26th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
How come our pope can issue edicts against gays and against people who are not of our religion,whilst he cannot and WILLNOT speak out against His own clergy who have committed the most grevious sin of all against a child,God may forgive him<but I never will.