En 2002, un documentaire télévisuel de la BBC intitulé « Suing the Pope » était consacré au prêtre Sean Fortune accusé d’abus sexuels sur mineurs dans le comté de Wexford en Irlande. L’affaire avait attiré l’attention sur la gestion de ce cas, et d’autres comparables, par le diocèse de Ferns et par l’Église catholique sur une période couvrant plusieurs décennies. Une commission gouvernementale irlandaise mandatée en 2003 pour enquêter sur le sujet aboutissait deux ans plus tard à un Rapport Ferns, accablant quant à des décisions, des communications de la hiérarchie cléricale et des dysfonctionnements de l’appareil judiciaire.
Parmi les cas abordés, le Rapport Ferns évoquait Miceal Ledwith, notamment président durant une dizaine d’années jusqu’en 1994-95 du St Patrick’s College à Maynooth (Irlande, Ferns, université pontificale et séminaire). Concerné par plusieurs allégations d’abus sexuels et de « comportements inappropriés », il avait contesté les accusations et conclut avec un plaignant un accord financier comprenant une clause de confidentialité. L’histoire illustrait aussi des étapes d’une rupture entre le clergé et l’un de ses membres à travers des procédures, des confrontations, des aspects du droit canon et du droit civil.
Au début des années 2000, tandis que la commission chargée du rapport Ferns enquêtait, M. Ledwith résidait désormais en partie aux États-Unis et affichait une proximité avec Judith « Zebra » Knight. En 2004, il participe au film « What the bleep do we know ?! » réalisé avec plusieurs membres de la Ramtha’s School of Enlightenment (RSE) où il intervient comme « enseignant ». Il co-signe un livre (trad. française avec l’ed. Trédaniel), participe à des conférences et produit quelques DVD en phase avec des thématiques ponctuelles de l’organisation : quantique mystique, calendrier maya, 2012, critique du dogme catholique, artefacts photographiques intitulés « orbs », extra-terrestres…
Suivent les pages qui concernent Miceal Ledwith dans le rapport Ferns :
Executive Summary
The Ferns Inquiry identified over 100 allegations of child sexual abuse made between 1962 and 2002 against 21 priests operating under the aegis of the Diocese of Ferns [1]. Six of the priests had died before any allegations of abuse were made against them. Three more died subsequent to the allegations.
The nature of the response by the Church authorities in the Diocese of Ferns to allegations of child sexual abuse by priests operating under the aegis of that diocese has varied over the past forty years. These variations reflect in part the growing understanding by the medical professions and society generally of the nature and the consequences of child sexual abuse and in part the different personalities and management styles of successive Bishops.
Between 1960 and 1980 it would appear that Bishop Herlihy treated child sexual abuse by priests of his diocese exclusively as a moral problem. He penalised the priest in respect of whom the allegation was made by transferring him to a different post or a different diocese for a period of time but then returned him to his former position.
By 1980, Bishop Herlihy recognised that there was a psychological or medical dimension to the issue of child sexual abuse.
His decision in 1980 to send priests in respect of whom allegations of abuse were made to a psychologist was appropriate and broadly in accordance with the understanding then evolving. What was wholly inappropriate and totally inexplicable was the decision of Bishop Herlihy to appoint to curacies priests against whom allegations had been made and in respect of whom a respected clerical psychologist had expressed his concerns in unambiguous terms as to their suitability to interact with young people.
Equally inappropriate was Bishop Herlihy’s decision to ordain clearly unsuitable men into the priesthood when he knew or ought to have known that they had a propensity to abuse children.
It is the view of the Ferns Inquiry, as it was the view of Roderick Murphy SC (now Mr Justice Roderick Murphy) as expressed in his Report on Child Sexual Abuse in Swimming (1998), that where a credible allegation of child sexual abuse is made against an employee (or other person acting under authority) it is the responsibility of the employer or superior to require the employee to step aside promptly from any post or position in which he has access to children. Bishop Comiskey accepted that this principle was equally applicable to the exercise by a bishop of his authority under Canon Law in relation to priests of his diocese. Furthermore it was recognised that in the case of diocesan clergy « stepping aside » from a position in which there is unsupervised access to children necessarily entailed stepping aside from the active ministry entirely pending the investigation of the allegations.
The annexed Report sets out in detail the difficulties experienced by Bishop Comiskey in securing the removal of diocesan clergy under his aegis from particular posts held by them. In almost every case significant periods elapsed before the Bishop could persuade the priest in question to vacate his position and undergo the assessment and treatment suggested by the Bishop. In no case did the Bishop persuade or compel the priest concerned to stand aside from his priestly ministry. The Inquiry
[I This figure does not include those priests included in the Appendix annexed hereto.]
does not underestimate the difficulties encountered by the Bishop but does expressly criticise his failure to stand aside from the ministry those priests against whom allegations had been made and in respect of whom information was or should have been available to the Bishop.
Subsequent to the appointment of Bishop Walsh as Apostolic Administrator of the Diocese of Ferns in April 2002, more effective steps were taken to ensure the protection of children. In particular all outstanding allegations of child sexual abuse were reviewed by the Administrator in conjunction with a new Advisory Panel. In addition the Bishop appealed widely to members of the public to come forward to the Diocese, the Gardai and the Health Board with information in relation to any allegation or suspicion of child sexual abuse not previously made known or which had been disclosed and had not been satisfactorily investigated or dealt with. There was a very significant response to that appeal.
In April 2002, eleven priests against whom allegations of child sexual abuse had been made were living. Three have been excluded from the priesthood by direction of The Holy See and seven have stood aside from the active ministry at the request of Bishop Eamonn Walsh. The eighth priest is advanced in years and is in retirement. The Gardai Siochana and the Health Board are advised from time to time as to the whereabouts of the priests who have stood aside and the circumstances in which they live. The Gardai and the Health Board are satisfied that the arrangements made in respect of those priests provide an appropriate measure of child protection.
The Inquiry is satisfied that the current practice of the Diocese of Ferns operates to a very high level of child protection. The regret is that this satisfactory position was not achieved at an earlier stage. Hopefully the procedures created and operated in the Diocese of Ferns will provide a model not merely for other dioceses but for other organisations facing allegations of child sexual abuse by their members.
Formal complaints of child sexual abuse were made against eight priests to An Garda Siochana. The Garda Authorities’ handling of one of those complaints was wholly inadequate. In the opinion of the Inquiry, the remaining formal complaints were generally investigated by the Gardai in an effective, professional and sensitive manner. In some cases the work of the Gardai was expressly commended to the Inquiry by the victims. The Director of Public Prosecutions directed the institution of criminal proceedings in only three of the six cases in which recommendations in that behalf were made by the Gardai. In two of the criminal proceedings, convictions were obtained. In the third case, the prosecution was withdrawn after the accused priest committed suicide.
Evidence was given to the Inquiry of some complaints that had been made to different members of the Gardai prior to 1988 which do not appear to have being recorded in any Garda file and which were not investigated or pursued in an appropriate manner. This unsatisfactory approach may have been due to the unwillingness of the complainant to pursue his or her complaint or reluctance on the part of members of An Garda Siochana to investigate allegations of wrongdoing by members of the Catholic clergy. The evidence available in respect of the period prior to 1988 is insufficient to enable the Inquiry to express any firm view on this issue.
The Inquiry is fully satisfied that subsequent to 1990 the members of An Garda Siochana were not deterred or inhibited in any way from carrying out a full and professional investigation of complaints made to them of child sexual abuse by members of the Roman Catholic Clergy.
The South Eastern Health Board was notified directly or indirectly of many of the allegations of child sexual abuse. The Board was in a position to provide and did in many cases provide, counselling or support for the alleged victims. All Health Boards have wide ranging statutory obligations to promote the welfare of children in their functional area but there are few, if any, express statutory powers enabling them to achieve those objectives where the welfare of the child is endangered by abuse perpetrated by persons outside the family circle. In the absence of requisite statutory powers there was no significant response available to the Board to the allegations of abuse made known to it. The Inquiry was concerned that the South Eastern Health Board and other authorities appeared to be unaware of the very limited nature of the statutory powers available to them to intervene for the protection of children in the circumstances under investigation by the Inquiry.
With the benefit of hindsight it is possible to see that the Church authorities, the medical profession and society generally failed to appreciate the horrendous damage which the sexual abuse of children can and does cause. The Inquiry was struck by the hurt still borne by mature and fair minded victims who gave evidence before it. The Oireachtas has fixed a maximum penalty of life imprisonment for the more serious offences involving child sexual abuse. The Inquiry is of the view that the severity of that penalty is fully justified.
No allegation was made and no evidence was placed before the Inquiry suggesting the operation or the organisation of a paedophile ring in the Diocese of Ferns or any clerical institution within that diocese.
The Inquiry wishes to express it admiration for the courage and integrity of all those witnesses who helped it in its work.
The Ferns Inquiry has sought to provide an honest and objective description of the events that led to its establishment. In Chapter 8 (g) of this Report, the Inquiry has suggested remedies to some of those problems that have not yet been addressed by Church or State authorities. These include a public education programme and regulatory and legislative changes that would provide protection to children abused by third parties.
The members of the Inquiry would express the hope that should the type of abuse chronicled in this Report ever occur again, there will be mechanisms and procedures in place which will enable victims promptly to report the abuse in the confidence that they would be believed and the certainty that appropriate action would be taken to terminate the wrongdoing.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction
Terms of Reference
Chapter One
1.1 Works Programme
1.2 A Review of the Birmingham Report
Chapter Two: Child Sexual Abuse and Abusers
What is Child Sexual Abuse?
Historical Perspective on Child Sexual Abuse
Common Perceptions about Child Child Sexual Abuse
The Process of Child Sexual Abuse
Impact of Child Sexual Abuse
Assessment and Treatment of Alleged Abusers
Returning Alleged Abusers to Ministry
Mandatory Reporting
Chapter Three: Legal and Managerial Structures
3.1 The Catholic Church
The Church. as an Organisation
Hierarchical Structure
Overview of the Diocese of Ferns
Administration in the Diocese
Management of the Diocese
St Peter’s College
Seminary Admission and Formation
Current Selection Procedures for Maynooth Seminary
Canon Law
The Removal of a Priest under Canon Law
The Framework Document
The Inter-Agency Review Committee
Application of Canon Law Procedures by Bishop Brendan
Comiskey and Bishop Walsh
Insurance
3.2 The SouthEastern Health Board
Administrative Structure of the South Eastern Health Board
Garda I Health Board Liaison
The Inter Agency Review Committee
3.3 An Garda Siochana
The Garda Process of Investigation
Sexual Offences Legislation
Chapter Four: Allegations of Abuse
4.1 Fr Donal Collins
4.2 Fr James Doyle
4.3 Fr Alpha
4.4 Fr James Grennan (Deceased)
4.5 Fr Sean Fortune (Deceased)
4.6 Monsignor Michael Ledwith …………………………….. 101
4.7 Canon Martin Clancy (Deceased)
4.8 Fr Beta
4.9 Fr Gamma
4.10 Fr Delta
4.11 Fr Epsilon (Deceased)
4.12 Fr Iota
4.13 Fr Kappa
4.14 Fr Lamda (Deceased)
4.15 Fr Zeta (Deceased)
4.16 Fr Sigma (Deceased)
4.17 Fr Upsilon
4.18 Fr Theta (Deceased)
4.19 Fr Omrikon
4.20 Fr Tau (Deceased)
4.21 Fr Omega
Unnamed Priests
Chapter Five: The Diocesan Response
Fr Donal Collins
Fr James Doyle
Fr Alpha
Fr James Grennan (Deceased)
Fr Sean Fortune
Monsignor Michael Ledwith …………………………….. 174
Canon Martin Clancy (Deceased)
Fr Beta
FrGamma
Chapter Six: South Eastern Health Board Response
Fr James Grennan (Deceased)
Fr James Doyle
Fr Alpha
Monsignor Michael Ledwith …………………………….. 215
Fr Omega
Fr Upsilon
Bishop Comiskey
Chapter Seven: An Garda Siochana Response<
Fr James Doyle
Fr Donal Collins
Fr Sean Fortune
Fr James Grennan
Fr Alpha
Canon Martin Clancy
Monsignor Michael Ledwith …………………………….. 240
Fr Delta
FrUpsilon
FrGamma
Fr Beta
Chapter Eight: Conclusions and Recommendations
Appendix:
INTRODUCTION
In August 2002 Mr George Birmingham SC presented a preliminary report on child sexual abuse involving Roman Catholic priests in the Diocese of Ferns to the Minister for Health and Children. Mr Birmingham had been asked by the Minister to investigate the background to allegations of child sexual abuse in the Diocese with a view to recommending an appropriate form and Terms of Reference for an Inquiry to inquire into the issue.As recommended by Mr Birmingham, the Minister for Health and Children established a non-statutory private inquiry to investigate allegations or complaints of child sexual abuse which were made against clergy operating under the aegis of the Diocese of Ferns.
The Ferns Inquiry was established as a three-person team under the chairmanship of Mr Justice Francis D Murphy, formerly of the Supreme Court. The two other members of the Inquiry are: Dr Helen Buckley, senior lecturer in the Department of Social Studies, Trinity College, Dublin; and Dr Laraine Joyce, deputy director of the Office for Health Management.
The Inquiry was formally established by the Minister for Health and Children on 28 March 2003.
Counsel to the Inquiry was Mr Sean Ryan SC and Mr Declan Doyle SC. Mr Ryan was nominated as a Judge of the High Court in September 2003 and was succeeded by Mr Finbarr Fox SC.
The Secretrary to the Inquiry was Mrs Marian Shanley BCL Solicitor.
Solicitor to the Inquiry was Mr Joseph O’Malley BCL LLM Solicitor, of Hayes Solicitors, Lavery House, Earlsfort Terrace, Dublin 2.
The Inquiry was assisted in its work by the following people:
Stephen O’Brien BA, Administrative Officer of the Department of Health and Children;
David Begley, Clerical Officer of the Department of Health and Children.
Gemma Normile B. Corp. Law, LLB, LLM, legal researcher;
Laura Dunne BCL, legal researcher;
Joe Jeffers BCL, LLM (Cantab), legal researcher;
The Inquiry acknowledges with gratitude the assistance of Shirley Hastings and Susan Cummins who provided secretarial and administrative support.
TERMS OF REFERENCE
A/ To identify what complaints or allegations have been made against clergy operating under the aegis of the Diocese of Ferns in relation to alleged events that transpired prior to 10 April 2002, and to report on the nature of the response to the identified complaints or allegations on the part of the Church authorities and any public authorities to which complaints or allegations were reported.
B/ To consider whether the response was adequate or appropriate, judged in the context of the time when the complaint or allegation was made, and if the response to the complaint or allegation appears inadequate or inappropriate when judged by those standards, to identify if possible the reason or reasons for this, and report thereon.
C/ To consider the response of diocesan and other Church authorities and the State authorities to cases where they had knowledge or strong and clear suspicion of sexual abuse involving priests of the Diocese of Ferns, and to consider whether that response was adequate or appropriate judged in the context of the time when the knowledge was acquired or the suspicion formed.
D/ Insofar as responses are seen to be inadequate or inappropriate, and insofar as it may be possible to identify explanations for that inadequate or inappropriate response, to consider whether those factors remain applicable and to what extent they have been subsequently addressed.
E/ To examine and report on the levels of communication that prevailed between diocesan and State authorities, to consider whether more appropriate norms or improved communication between the diocesan authorities and the State authorities are now desirable or practical.
F/ To identify and report on any lessons which might usefully be learned from how complaints or allegations were handled in the past, which will result in improved child protection.
G/ To identify and report on any difficulties or shortcomings in current laws and regulations and to make recommendations as to legislative or regulatory change that would remedy these.
H/ In the event of the withholding or withdrawal of full cooperation from the Inquiry by Church authorities or any State authorities, or any suggestion that cooperation is being withheld, to report that fact immediately to the Minister for Health and Children. In the event of the Minister for Health and Children receiving such a report she will then grant the Inquiry statutory powers.
I/ At the conclusion of their inquiries, to deliver a full and final report to the Minister for Health and Children who will lay it before the houses of the Oireachtas and publish the report in full, subject to legal advice.
J/ In the event of the Inquiry not producing a final report within 12 months of the date of appointment by the Minister, the Inquiry will publish an interim report and indicate a date for the Inquiry’s final report.
4.6 MONSIGNOR MICHAEL LEDWITH 4.6.1 SEMINARIAN GROUP AND FR GERARD MCGINNITY
It is alleged as follows:
The Inquiry spoke with a group of six fonner seminarians, a fonner student, and Fr Gerard McGinnity, fonnerly Senior Dean in Maynooth College, in relation to complaints made against Monsignor Ledwith to various bishops in 1983 and 1984. The group of former seminarians maintain that they voiced concerns over their seminary training, Monsignor Ledwith’s allegedly extravagant lifestyle and his alleged sexual orientation and propensity. They shared anxieties over Monsignor Ledwith’s preferential treatment of certain students and his relationship with such students which they believed was inappropriate. One seminarian in particular said that, although he was in no doubt that he expressed to the bishops he met his concern over Monsignor Ledwith’s sexual behaviour, this concern was definitely more of an anxiety with regard to orientation and propensity rather than with specific sexual activity. Contrary to media reports, no specific allegations were made against Monsignor Ledwith but rather a concern was expressed in the general sense. The other five seminarians who attended the Ferns Inquiry confirmed this version of events.
None of the bishops, still living, to whom it is contended this group of seminarians spoke and who were contacted by the Inquiry, could recall any mention of sexual impropriety at their meetings with the members of the group or any of them.
After meeting with various bishops, including Bishop Comiskey, the group was dissatisfied with the response received and reported the matter to Fr Gerard McGinnity in his capacity as senior Dean. Fr McGinnity spoke to Cardinal Tomas O’Fiaich, Archbishop Dermot Ryan and Bishop Kevin McNamara (all of whom are now deceased). He also expressed his concerns in a confidential document returned by him to the Papal Nuncio. Bishop Casey became aware of the communication between Fr McGinnity and the three Bishops. At a subsequent meeting with Fr McGinnity, Bishop Casey called upon him to produce a victim of sexual abuse by Monsignor Ledwith. Fr McGinnity did not know of such a victim and therefore could not have produced one. His purpose had been to relate concerns as to the appropriateness of his relationship with some students. He never had any specific allegations to report. On the basis that a senior dean could not continue in the college after making such serious allegations against a VicePresident of the college, Fr McGinnity was required to remove himself from Maynooth on a year’s sabbatical after which he was not re-admitted. Monsignor Ledwith was appointed President of Maynooth College ten months after Fr McGinnity’s removal.
4.6.2 RAYMOND
Raymond alleged the following:
In 1994, Raymond alleged that he was abused by Monsignor Ledwith in the early 1980s when he was 13 years of age until after his 15th birthday. The exact age at when this abuse is alleged to have commenced is in dispute as Monsignor Ledwith states that he only became acquainted with this family after Raymond was 15 years old.
Raymond alleges that Monsignor Ledwith abused him in his, Raymond’s home and in Monsignor Ledwith’s house. The abuse amounted to touching and masturbation.
As a result of speaking to his parents about the abuse he went to meet Bishop Newman, Bishop of Limerick. Bishop Newman dismissed Raymond abruptly. The bishop’s secretary, Fr Liam O’Sullivan, suggested that he should go to see Cardinal Daly. Cardinal Daly travelled to meet Raymond and then referred the matter to Bishop Comiskey who was Monsignor Ledwith’s Bishop. Bishop Comiskey informed the Inquiry that he met with Raymond and as a result he was more decisive in acting against Monsignor Ledwith. He set up a Canonical investigation and sought to have Monsignor Ledwith’s priestly faculties removed. This is dealt with at Chapter Five of this Report.
The Diocese paid for intensive counselling for Raymond and his family. The Bishop was persuaded by Raymond’s family to use his good offices to find employment for Raymond. Raymond and his family were angry and bitter over the events that had occurred and are continuing to receive counselling. Monsignor Ledwith reached a financial settlement with Raymond which did not involve the Diocese of Ferns, without any admission of liability. The settlement contained a « confidentiality clause » which precluded Raymond from discussing this matter and in particular precluded him from assisting in the canonical process initiated by the Trustees of Maynooth College which is discussed at Chapter Five of this Report.
Raymood did not discuss the alleged abuse with the Inquiry and when contacted by it through his lawyers, his lawyers informed the Inquiry that he was always concerned about any publicity with regard to this matter. He was genuinely fearful that if he got involved in making a detailed complaint to the Garda Authorities he might not be able to preserve his anonymity. He was concerned about the impact such publicity would have on his family.
Monsignor Ledwith was similarly prevented from discussing this matter with the Inquiry but has at all times attested to his innocence of all allegations made.
4.6.3 SHANE
Shane alleged the following:.
102
Shane was a third year seminarian in Maynooth when he claims he was abused by Monsignor Ledwith in November 1994. He first spoke about this incident to his General Practitioner in October 1997 when he attended for treatment for depression. He had left seminary training in 1995 and had started work as a secondary school teacher. He continued to receive treatment for depression and in March 2000 whilst receiving hospital treatment, he arranged a meeting with his former Bishop to inform him that he intended making a formal complaint to the Gardai about the sexual abuse he had experienced. He did not reveal the name of the alleged perpetrator to his bishop.
The hospital authorities contacted the Diocese of Ferns and the Gardai in 2000. In his first statement to the Gardai in April 2000, Shane described in detail a very serious rape he claimed was perpetrated by Monsignor Ledwith. The Gardai commenced a thorough investigation of the allegation. Although witnesses spoken to by the Gardai all attested to a sudden change in Shane’s personality in November 1994, none of them could confirm any question of sexual abuse being raised except for one infirmary nurse who said she was concerned about that at the time.
In June 2001 Shane completely withdrew all allegations against the Monsignor stating that no rape took place but that a consensual sexual encounter had occurred.
Monsignor Ledwith stated to the Gardai that he did not know Shane and had never had any relationship with him at any time, either consensual or otherwise. He further stated that he was not in the country on the dates which Shane stated as being the days on which the abuse is alleged to have occurred and was in a position to prove that.
This allegation was later than the allegation at 4.6.2 above and Monsignor Ledwith was no longer in active ministry in the diocese. Bishop Comiskey had already informed the bishop in the diocese where Monsignor Ledwith was residing about the previous allegation. Bishop Comiskey informed the Bishop of Seattle of this further allegation against Monsignor Ledwith but did not inform the Archbishop when the allegation had been completely withdrawn.
The Gardai considered the desirability of prosecuting Shane for having made a false allegation but recommended to the DPP, who accepted the advice, that no such prosecution be brought because the view was taken that Shane was mentally unstable.
Shane commenced High Court proceedings against Maynooth College and Monsignor Ledwith but his withdrawal of the criminal charge led to the discontinuance of this action.
Monsignor Ledwith has told the Inquiry that it was difficult to convey in words the difficulty and expense caused to him and his family by this allegation which was proved to be without foundation and was made by a person whom he stated he did not know and was alleged to have occurred when he was not in Ireland.
103
MONSIGNOR MICHAEL LEDWITH
The Inquiry has received infonnation about concerns expressed in relation to Monsignor Michael Ledwith in 1983/84 by a group of seminarians in St Patrick’s College Maynooth. The Inquiry has also received infonnatioil about allegations of sexual abuse made against Monsignor Ledwith in 1994 and 2000 (4.6.1, 4.6.2 and 4.6.3).
St Patrick’s College Maynooth is a body corporate in civil and Canon law. It was founded in 1795 as a seminary for the education of Catholic priests. It is also a pontifical university and was from 1910 until 1997 a recognised college of the National University of Ireland. The University Act 1997 established the college as an autonomous institution under civil law entitled, « The National University of Ireland, Maynooth. »
During the period relevant to this Inquiry, Maynooth was governed by the Statutes of St Patrick’s College which were adopted in October 1962. The College was led by a President and two Vice Presidents. In 1980, Monsignor Michael Ledwith was appointed as Vice President. He had been on the staff of Maynooth from 1971.
The details of the concerns that were expressed against Monsignor Michael Ledwith in 1983/84 were discussed with a group of six former seminarians who attended the Inquiry, three of whom are now ordained priests.
These seminarians had come to Maynooth as mature students. Within a number of years they each had concerns about the running of Maynooth and the training they were receiving for their priesthood. Their concerns had different aspects: they felt that inadequate emphasis was placed on spiritual values; they were shocked by what they saw or believed to be the lavish and worldly lifestyle of Monsignor Ledwith and they were concerned about the infornation or rumours that might have suggested that the Monsignor had a homosexual orientation.
The seminarians felt that they had a responsibility to share their concerns about Maynooth with those in authority. They sought the advice of Bishop Brendan Comiskey, then Auxiliary Bishop of Dublin. He suggested that they approach seven « key Bishops » in order that their concerns would be adequately heard. It is believed that the following Bishops were contacted by one or more seminarians from the group: Cardinal Tomas a Fiaich RIP, Bishop Cabal B. Daly (as he then was), Bishop Edward Daly, Bishop J Lennon RIP, Bishop J Cassidy, Bishop C O’Reilly, Bishop Eamonn Casey and Bishop J Aherne RIP.
One seminarian in particular said that, although he was in no doubt that he expressed to the Bishops he met his concern over Monsignor Ledwith’s sexual behaviour, this concern was definitely more of an anxiety with regard to orientation and propensity rather than with specific sexual activity. Contrary to media reports, no specific allegations were made against Monsignor Ledwith but rather a concern was expressed in the general sense. The other five seminarians who attended the Ferns Inquiry confirmed this version of events.
174
Cardinal Cahal Daly said that there were grave worries about Maynooth in 1982 and that Monsignor Michael Ledwith formed part of those worries. However these concerns were about Monsignor Ledwith’s allegedly extravagant lifestyle and his lack of prayer life. He decided to initiate a thorough investigation at this time and asked Bishop Kevin McNamara to conduct this. Bishop McNamara made inquiries about Monsignor Ledwith’s allegedly extravagant lifestyle and his spiritual life. Bishop McNamara said that he was satisfied that there was no basis for concern. He said Monsignor Ledwith’s lifestyle was not extravagant and he conducted his spiritual life in private which gave rise to the impression that it was not adequate. Cardinal Daly said that there was no investigation into Monsignor Ledwith’s sexuality at that time because there was no suggestion of sexual impropriety or sexual harassment in connection with him.
The Conference of Bishops, at its meeting in November 1983, appointed a group of Bishops to institute a thorough investigation of the whole seminary situation in Maynooth and to make appropriate recommendations. This investigation had already begun four months before the approach to selected Bishops by seminarians in March 1984.
Cardinal Daly said in his statement to the Inquiry that it was entirely untrue that any seminarian had mentioned homosexuality in relation to Monsignor Ledwith to him. The Cardinal said that it was not credible that he would have ignored allegations of homosexuality when he was already investigating the situation in Maynooth. He said that it was possible that the seminarians had a misplaced memory of what occurred. He said that Monsignor Ledwith would never have been appointed President of Maynooth in March 1985 if he had been aware of allegations of homosexuality against him. Bishop Casey has also stated to the Inquiry that no allegation relating to Monsignor Ledwith’s sexuality came to his attention at that time. The recollection of the seminarians of the concerns expressed by them was at variance with that of the Bishops. The Bishops fully accepted that concerns about a worldly lifestyle and expensive hobbies were mentioned but they disputed the recollection of the seminarians that any concern in relation to sexual propensity was mentioned.
The Inquiry is presented with two opposing views of what occurred in 1983 when the group of seminarians originally spoke with individual Bishops. The six seminarians who spoke to the Inquiry were quite clear that they raised the issue of homosexuality with the Bishops they spoke to. The Bishops in their statements to Mr George Birmingham, which they have commended to the Ferns Inquiry, were quite clear that no issue of sexual impropriety was raised in 1983. The Ferns Inquiry cannot resolve this issue.
The seminarians described to the Inquiry how the reaction of the Bishops they spoke to left them feeling uneasy. They felt vulnerable and fearful for their own position in the seminary and therefore they confided in the senior dean at the time, Fr Gerard McGinnity.
Fr McGinnity attended the Ferns Inquiry for an oral hearing. He said that he was approached in April 1984 by the group of seminarians who told him they were worried that Monsignor Ledwith was making improper approaches to junior students and that these students were being selected on a certain observable basis of
175
appearance. However, no specific allegations were made by these students either in respect of themselves or anybody else. He said that Monsignor Ledwith would not have had any academic reason to communicate with these students and that, in the ethos of Maynooth at the time; it would have been unheard of for a member of staff to cultivate such particular friendships. The Trustees of St Patrick’s College Maynooth have pointed out to the Inquiry that as Vice President, Monsignor Ledwith would have had a duty to know all seminarians as it would have been his responsibility to take part in making a judgment on the suitability of students for the priesthood. Monsignor Ledwith has also stated that although he had particular friendships with two or three students at that time no question of any improper relationship arose.
Fr McGinnity told the Inquiry that he took what these students said very seriously and although it would be virtually unheard of to report another member of staff, he felt, in conscience, that the welfare of the students demanded it. The three Bishops to whom Fr McGinnity spoke were Cardinal Tomas 0 Fiaich, Archbishop of Armagh, Archbishop Dermot Ryan of Dublin and Bishop Kevin McNamara of Kerry, all of whom are now deceased.Fr McGinnity said that apart from speaking with the three Bishops, he had received a confidential communication from the Apostolic Nuncio, Archbishop Alibrandi, about the suitability of Monsignor Ledwith to be appointed as a Bishop, which is a normal procedure in the process leading to the appointment of all Bishops. He said that he completed this form conscientiously and availed of the opportunity to express the concerns that had been communicated to him about Monsignor Ledwith’s sexual propensities and tendencies and also about his attitude toward prayer and devotion. Although this was « sub pontifiicio secreto », meaning « beneath the pontifical secret », and as such, highly confidential, the details of whatFr McGinnity had written in connection with Monsignor Ledwith were made known to other Bishops.
Cardinal Daly has stated emphatically that in 1983/1984 he had no knowledge of any « alleged propensities and tendencies » of Monsignor Ledwith. He further stated that colleagues who were in active ministry at the time to whom he spoke have no recollection of any such references and that if they had had such information it would have been properly investigated at the time.
Bishop Eamonn Casey has stated that Bishop Comiskey arranged to meet him to tell him that Fr McGinnity had spoken to Cardinal Tomas 0 Fiaich and Archbishop McNamara suggesting that there was some sexual impropriety in Monsignor Ledwith’s relationship with certain students. Bishop Casey was so concerned when he heard this that he immediately drove to Armagh to visit Cardinal Tomas 0 Fiaich and from there to Kerry to meet Archbishop McNamara on the same day. Bishop Comiskey could not recall who had told him that allegations had been made by Fr McGinnity, although he was fairly certain that he had heard about it from another Bishop rather than from Monsignor Ledwith himself.
It is difficult to reconcile the accounts given by Bishop Casey and Bishop Comiskey with the almost complete lack of knowledge of these events on the part of the other Bishops involved. It was also extremely difficult to reconcile Bishop Comiskey’s position at the time with his subsequent support for Monsignor Ledwith as President of Maynooth College in 1985.
176
Bishop Comiskey said in November 2002 that he was prepared to swear that he did not know of any sexual impropriety on the part of Monsignor Ledwith reported to him by seminarians, before reading about it in newspaper reports in 1993. He told the Inquiry that when making that statement he had forgotten entirely about the allegations which he had raised with Bishop Casey. These allegations, as far as he was concerned, did not emanate from seminarians and therefore were not in his consciousness at the time of making his statement.
Fr Gerard McGinnity told the Inquiry that a meeting of a group described as the « Board of Visitors » to Maynooth College took place in May 1984, some weeks after Bishop Casey’s visit to Armagh and Kerry,. The « Visitors » were a group of Bishops who dealt with problems that might arise in the day to day running of the College. One member of this Board was Bishop Eamonn Casey who attended the May meeting.
Fr McGinnity’s evidence to the Inquiry was: « He asked to see me and …. he very directly, trenchantly, confronted me and he said, ‘You have reported to the Nuncio a member of staff. You have gone to Bishops about this member of staff and you have made serious allegations about him in the sexual domain.’ The word ‘sexual’ was used, and there was no doubt in his mind and there was no doubt in mine that the matter under discussion was the sexual dimension to what had been reported. J said to the Bishop, ‘I have not reported …Monsignor Ledwith to the Nuncio. Rather I received from the Nuncio a confidential consultation about which you now clearly know ».
Fr McGinnity told the Inquiry that Bishop Eamonn Casey said to him, « These are very serious allegations about a man and about his reputation. » Fr McGinnity replied, « Yes they are Bishop, but I can’t do anything about that. It’s my duty to relay them to you who is responsible. »
Bishop Casey then asked Fr McGinnity, « Well, can you bring me here and now, a student who had been the victim of sexual approach by this member of staff? »
Fr McGinnity told Bishop Casey that he could not there and then bring such a student to him. He said, « There had not been an accusation of assault or approach of that kind. What I have conveyed and what the students are exercised about is the practise of this man in cultivating same sex friendships with people who have a certain appearance, and trying to bring them off on their own. J have not received any such accusations directly. » Fr McGinnity told the Inquiry that in the circumstances, it struck him that the Bishop’s demand was impossible and unreasonable. Bishop Casey does not recall the clarification outlined in the above paragraph and does not recall the Papal Nuncio being mentioned and cannot recall using the word « sexual » but he does agree that his conversation with Fr McGinnity was less than two minutes.
Immediately following this meeting, Bishop Casey reported to the Board of Visitors and it was agreed that a person who made such a serious allegation against the Vice-President, without being able to produce evidence of any inappropriate relationship could not continue as Senior Dean. Fr McGinnity’s Archbishop, who was a member of the Board of Visitors, agreed to withdraw him from the College and he suggested to Fr McGinnity that he should take a year’s sabbatical from the college.
177
Fr McGinnity agreed to this and he spent the year in Rome and the US, Apart from Bishop Casey, no member of the then Board of Visitors of Maynooth is now alive. Fr McGinnity told the Inquiry that whilst he was on his sabbatical year, his Bishop asked him whether he had any thoughts for the future. Fr McGinnity said he had presumed he would be returning to Maynooth but Archbishop 0 Fiaich told him that that would not be possible and that he had been asked to request Fr McGinnity to offer his resignation from Maynooth.
Fr McGinnity told the Inquiry that he was stunned at being told this and it was both humiliating and punitive for him to be so suddenly removed from Maynooth and so obviously demoted from his position in a situation which stripped him of his reputation.
The only investigation carried out in relation to the concerns originally communicated by the seminarians and undoubtedly expressed by Fr McGinnity, consisted of the interview between Bishop Casey and Fr McGinnity described above. In the view of the Inquiry, that truncated interview did not, by any standards, constitute an adequate inquiry into what were serious concerns.
Not only was the inquiry inadequate but it seems clear that Bishop Casey or his informants misunderstood the nature of the concerns. Clearly Bishop Casey conducted the interview in the belief that an allegation of sexual misconduct by Monsignor Ledwith had been made by a particular student. This was never the case. Fr McGinnity was convinced that his removal from Maynooth and the subsequent refusal of his request for a return to his position after his sabbatical year was because he had communicated the seminarians’ complaint to the church authorities. The Inquiry believes it is entirely understandable that Fr McGinnity should feel so victimised in the circumstances.
Monsignor Michael Ledwith attended the Ferns Inquiry and said that Bishop Comiskey had approached him about allegations of undue favouritism and even possible homosexuality which had been made against him by Fr McGinnity. Monsignor Ledwith said he spoke to Fr McGinnity about the allegations but he denied having made a specific allegation as was alleged. He also said he spoke with Cardinal O’Fiaich, who was Fr McGinnity’s Bishop, but nothing further was done. Monsignor Ledwith was quite clear that in his view the dismissal of Fr McGinnity from Maynooth was because of a grave disquiet about his whole policy in regard to discipline. He said that Fr McGinnity’s attempt to undermine him was not a cause for dismissal or certainly not the only or main reason for it. Fr McGinnity has stated that any such disquiet only arose after his reporting of the seminarians’ complaints.
The Inquiry has been informed by individual Bishops that had the seminarians made a complaint of improper sexual propensities or orientation on the part of Monsignor Ledwith, it would have been taken seriously and thoroughly investigated. However, a definite if non-specific allegation was made by Fr Gerard McGinnity in 1984 and the « investigation » which took place was inadequate. Fr McGinnity left Maynooth in May 1984 and ten months later, Monsignor Ledwith was appointed as President of St Patrick’s College Maynooth. Bishop Comiskey made a forceful speech of support
178
when nominating him for this position. Bishop Comiskey said that he would never have done this if he had had any grounds for concern over Monsignor Ledwith’s sexuality. Bishop Comiskey told the Inquiry that he was 100% behind Monsignor Ledwith’s candidacy for Presidency of Maynooth because he believed that the information available to him was also available to three senior Bishops and that they would have looked into the matter. He said that nobody raised any questions over Monsignor Ledwith’s promotion to President. Bishop Comiskey also told the Inquiry that the allegations by Fr McGinnity as communicated by him to Bishop Casey had simply gone out of his head when he recommended Monsignor Ledwith for promotion.
Monsignor Ledwith served as President of Maynooth from 1985 until his retirement in 1995. From 1980 until 1997, he served three full terms on the International Theological Commission, a group of 30 theologians from around the world charged with advising the Holy See on theological matters. He was also Secretary of three Synods of World Bishops in Rome and was appointed a member of the Congregation for Catholic Education.
In 1994, an allegation was made that Monsignor Ledwith had sexually abused a thirteen year old boy in 1981 (Raymond 4.6.2). The abuse allegedly continued until after Raymond’s 15th birthday. Monsignor Ledwith disputes the abuse and denies particularly that he met Raymond before Raymond’s 15th birthday.
Raymond first made his allegation to Bishop Newman in 1994. Bishop Newman dealt so abruptly with the matter that his secretary advised Raymond to report the allegation to Cardinal Daly, which he did. Cardinal Daly travelled to meet Raymond and then referred the matter to Bishop Comiskey, as Monsignor Ledwith was a priest under the aegis of the Diocese of Ferns.
Bishop Comiskey informed the Health Board in December 1994 of the allegation and he informed the Gardai some weeks later. He did not then or subsequently disclose the name of the complainant which had been given to him in confidence. This method of maintaining confidentiality was adopted by all three authorities. Bishop Comiskey did furnish to the Gardai the name of the solicitor acting on behalf of Raymond and through him they were then able to communicate with Raymond.
Fr Walter Forde investigated the allegations on Bishop Comiskey’s behalf and reported that he found them capable of being true. This investigation was done without informing Monsignor Ledwith or without interviewing him.
Raymond consulted lawyers with a view to instituting a civil action for damages against Monsignor Ledwith but the matter was settled by the Monsignor after taking legal advice with a payment of a sum of money and no admission of liability.
As a result of Fr Forde’s recommendation, Bishop Comiskey requested Monsignor Ledwith to attend for an assessment at a treatment centre run by Fr Stephen Rosetti in Maryland in the United States. At first Monsignor Ledwith had been willing to attend for assessment but became more concerned when he found himself being treated in an unjust manner by the Diocese. Monsignor Ledwith told the Inquiry that when he
179
telephoned the treatment centre and discovered that the assessment would involve a residency of one week, during which electrical and chemical tests would be conducted as well as the administration of drugs, he was concerned about these procedures but agreed to attend upon certain safeguards being put in place as indicated by his legal advisors. In fact, this was never done.
Bishop Comiskey was not in a position to meet the requirements of Monsignor Ledwith, which were a precondition to attending for assessment, and within a few weeks of communicating this decision relating to his attendance for assessment, Monsignor Ledwith was handed a letter dated 16 December 1994, which stated that the Bishop had set up an inquiry under Canon 1717. Monsignor Richard Breen was appointed to conduct the inquiry into the allegations. In spite of continued and sustained attempts by Monsignor Ledwith to speak with Bishop Comiskey or Monsignor Breen after receipt of this letter and numerous letters to the Diocese, Monsignor Ledwith did not receive details of the allegations, the subject matter of the Inquiry until 5 February 1995.
Monsignor Ledwith was adamant that he had at all times co-operated with Bishop Comiskey’s attempts to bring this matter to a conclusion notwithstanding his grave reservations about the fairness of the procedure adopted by the Bishop.
In January 1995, Bishop Comiskey wrote to the Archbishop of Seattle to inform him that an allegation had been made against Monsignor Michael Ledwith who was at that time on sabbatical from St Patrick’s College Maynooth and was resident in his Diocese.
Bishop Comiskey consulted a Canon lawyer and sought advice on what Canon law procedure was available in circumstances where the accused priest was no longer in active ministry in the Diocese. The Canon lawyer felt that Monsignor Ledwith fell into a category of persons envisaged by Canon l395. s. 2, namely a cleric « liable to be punished with just penalties, not excluding dismissal from the clerical state if the case so warrants ». Bishop Comiskey however, discovered that he was unable to pursue this remedy as the procedure was barred by lapse of time and the proceedings issued against Monsignor Ledwith had to be withdrawn. Bishop Comiskey did not pursue any further Canon law options available to him.
In the meantime, the Trustees of St Patrick’s College, Maynooth instituted their own procedure for reviewing Monsignor Ledwith’s position in the college. The lawyers for Monsignor Ledwith indicated that they could not permit their client to appear before any tribunal of inquiry which had no basis in law and that such an inquiry was not authorised by the statutes of Maynooth College. The lawyers for the Trustees . defended their right to hold an inquiry and informed Monsignor Ledwith’s solicitors that a resolution for his dismissal from the college would be brought before a meeting to be held in the college. In response, Monsignor Ledwith prepared a lengthy document outlining his position with regard to all of the allegations made against him, which he totally denied. He challenged the right of the Trustees to dismiss him from his position in Maynooth College in the manner suggested.
The terms of the settlement between Monsignor Ledwith and Raymond included an obligation of absolute confidentiality, which proved an impediment in pursuing the
180
Maynooth Investigation. The issue of waiver of this confidentiality clause by Monsignor Ledwith was raised by lawyers for the Trustees but he did not agree to do this because he was unhappy with the procedures being adopted by the sub-committee of Trustees who were conducting the Inquiry. Correspondence indicates that Raymond was willing to waive this clause in the agreement although he was determined to otherwise respect the confidentiality of what had occurred in order to avoid stress and embarrassment to his family.
This hearing was conducted at the Archbishop’s house in Drumcondra and Monsignor Ledwith attended with two senior counsel and two solicitors. One of the more serious reservations expressed by both him and his legal team was the fact that Cardinal Daly, who had investigated the complaint initially and had reported the matter to the Congregation for Catholic Education in Rome, acted as chairman to the body of Trustees who were .investigating the matter objectively. He said that although the procedure adopted by the subcommittee in Drumcondra was deeply flawed both from a civil law and a Canon law perspective, in the end, he felt he had no choice but to retire from his position on the staff of the college.
Bishop Comiskey said that Monsignor Ledwith, as with many other priests accused of child abuse, attacked the process rather than facing up to the charges. He expressed the view that this could have gone on indefinitely and indeed, the legal debate in relation to. the Maynooth inquiry took place over an I8-month period. Monsignor Ledwith had in fact already indicated his desire to retire from the Presidency of Maynooth some months before the allegation was made by Raymond, and he did retire from the Presidency and retired from his Professorship in September 1996. Monsignor Ledwith does not agree with Bishop Comiskey’s assessment of his cooperation with a process which he believed to be deeply flawed.
The Inquiry asked Bishop Comiskey whether the events of 1994 and ’95 caused him to reflect on his assessment of Monsignor Ledwith back in 1983 and ’84. Bishop Comiskey said that he did not believe Fr McGinnity back in 1984 and he still did not believe him but that obviously he had to consider that there might have been something more to what the seminarians were alleging in 1983. Bishop Comiskey was quite adamant that he did not feel the allegations that emerged in 1994 reflected in any way on the handling of the allegations made in 1983/1984.
In July 2000, a further allegation was made against Monsignor Ledwith (Shane 4.6.3). This allegation arose when the complainant, who was suffering from depression, was admitted to St Patrick’s Hospital for help with a severe drinking problem. In the course of his treatment he told his doctor that he had been sexually abused by Monsignor Ledwith whilst he was a seminarian in Maynooth in November 1994 and that this had caused the deterioration in both his mental and physical health. A report was forwarded to the Gardai who then investigated the allegation.
The Gardai informed the President of Maynooth College, Monsignor Dermot Farrell, who in tum informed Bishop Comiskey. At this stage, Monsignor Ledwith was already out of the jurisdiction and a full Garda investigation was under way. In fact, this criminal investigation did not proceed because the complainant admitted that the allegations were false. Bishop Comiskey had already written to the Archbishop of
181
Seattle, where Monsignor Ledwith was resident to inform him of the allegation but did not later inform the Archbishop when the allegations were shown to be false.
Although Monsignor Ledwith’s position as a professor and President of Maynooth College was resolved by his retirement in 1996, his position as a priest of the Diocese of Ferns was not resolved until September 2005.
The Inquiry would like to acknowledge Monsignor Ledwith’s co-operation with this Inquiry and the personal efforts made by him to attend for an oral hearing. An issue with which he was particularly concerned was his contention that the way in which the provisions of the Canon law were being interpreted and the Maynooth Inquiry did not afford him natural justice in a number of respects. In addition, Monsignor Ledwith did not feel free to comment on the allegations raised by Raymond because of the confidentiality clause entered into by him. Monsignor Ledwith has at all times asserted his innocence of all allegations made against him.
BISHOP EAMONN WALSH
When Bishop Walsh became Apostolic Administrator for the Diocese of Ferns, he reviewed Monsignor Ledwith’s file and presented it to the Ad-hoc Advisory Panel and later to the Ferns Advisory Panel. Both agreed that Monsignor Ledwith should be subject to a Precept and be invited to seek voluntary laicisation. Through the Precept a number of obligations were imposed upon Monsignor· Ledwith, including: no unsupervised involvement with minors; no celebration of mass and the sacraments in public; avoidance of all direct contact with anyone who made allegations against him and their families; no wearing of clerical dress and, the revocation of the faculties of the Diocese of Ferns.
Attempts to contact Monsignor Ledwith to invite him to seek voluntary laicisation were not successful. Bishop Walsh communicated with the Papal Nuncio for advice on how to deal with this matter. In a letter dated 4 February 2003, the Papal Nuncio advised Bishop Walsh to « avail of wise Canonical advice regarding the procedures at your disposal. Such Canonists are readily available in Ireland, as ecclesiastical tribunals are established and functioning here ».
The Apostolic Administrator has forwarded Monsignor Ledwith’s case to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome recommending that Monsignor Ledwith be dismissed from the clerical state and this has now been granted.
THE INQUIRY VIEW OF THE DIOCESAN HANDLING OF THE MONSIGNOR LEDWITH CASE:
• A number of contentious issues have arisen in relation to the conduct of Monsignor Ledwith when he was Vice President of Maynooth College. Amongst the issues with which this Inquiry is concerned is the apparent victimisation of Fr McGinnity as a result of concerns which he
182
undoubtedly expressed to three members of the hierarchy in relation to the Monsignor. A group of seminarians had, prior to Fr McGinnity’s disclosure, expressed certain concerns they had had of an allegedly extravagant life style and expensive hobbies on the part of Monsignor Ledwith: this is common case. Whether the complaint by the group extended as they allege, to the expression of concerns about sexual orientation is a matter in dispute with the Bishops concerned. It is not practicable for this Inquiry to attempt resolution of that dispute.
• By any standard the concerns as communicated by the seminarians and expressed by Fr McGinnity were inadequately investigated. They also appear to have been wholly misunderstood. He made no specific allegations of particular abuse and accordingly the demand to produce a victim was unrealistic. As Fr McGinnity was invited to take a sabbatical on the same date that Bishop Casey reported the results of his « investigation » to his fellow Bishops on the Board of Visitors of Maynooth, the Inquiry views as entirely understandable Fr McGinnity feeling that he was victimised as a result of the concerns of the seminarians which he expressed. Punitive actions of that nature could only deter bone fide complaints to church authorities which should be valued as providing information for the control of those having access to young people.
• The Inquiry is satisfied that Cardinal Daly, Bishop Comiskey and Bishop Walsh acted promptly and effectively in extending support to Raymond and his family. The failure of Bishop Comiskey to report the complaint to the Gardai prior to January 1996 was of little practical significance. The duty of confidentiality imposed upon him precluded him in his view from disclosing the name of the complainant to the Gardai and without that information the Gardai could not conduct any meaningful investigation. Bishop Comiskey properly advised the Gardai of the name and address of the solicitor acting on behalf of the complainant to enable them to apply to that source for assistance in identifying him.
183
MONSIGNOR MICHAEL LEDWITH
Raymond (4.6.2) met with Bishop Comiskey on April 1994, and informed him that he had been sexually abused by Monsignor Ledwith during the early 1980s in his family home and also at Monsignor Ledwith’s house. Raymond stated that he was aged 13 to 15 years at the time of the alleged abuse although the records from the three bodies examined by this Inquiry do not concur on the dates when this alleged abuse is said to have commenced and concluded.
Bishop Comiskey arranged for Raymond to be interviewed by two diocesan priests and they informed him that they were satisfied that Raymond’s allegation was capable of being true. Bishop Comiskey met Raymond and he confirmed to this Inquiry that he was impressed by the young man and that he too found his complaint to be credible.
On 23 December 1994, Bishop Comiskey informed Dr Antoinette Rogers who was Acting Director of Community Care in the South Eastern Health Board, that this allegation had been made. He did not give Dr Rogers the name of the complainant because he had guaranteed confidentiality to him but he did inform her of the identity of Monsignor Ledwith.
In January 1995, Dr Rogers wrote to Chief Superintendent Murphy in Wexford to notify him of the allegations. She also communicated with the Mid Western Health
215
Board because the complainant was residing in that Health Board’s region. Neither the Health Board nor the Gardai were aware of the identity of the complainant as he, and his family, were quite adamant that they would not speak with Gardai and would not co-operate if approached. The family were fearful of the publicity that would undoubtedly attach to the prosecution of a man in the position of Monsignor Ledwith. The Mid Western Health Board requested identifying information from Bishop Comiskey who provided it by giving the name of Raymond’s solicitor.
Coincidentally, the solicitor acting for the family of the complainant asked Mr Gerard Crowley, Child Care Development Officer with the Mid Western Health Board, to meet with a family that he was acting for. The family spoke of child sexual abuse by Monsignor Ledwith. Mr Crowley realised that this was the same allegation that had been communicated by the South Eastern Health Board some months earlier. Subsequently, Bishop Comiskey referred the Mid-Western Health Board to this same solicitor.
The Mid Western Health Board offered counselling and support to the family but the family and the complainant, who was by this stage a young adult, were adamant that they would not cooperate with any Garda investigation and would deny the allegations if approached by the Gardai. Mr Gerard Crowley communicated all information other than the identity of the young man to An Garda Siochana and was requested to make a statement to the Gardai confirming that the young man or his family would not make a complaint to them. According to Mr Crowley, the Gardai discovered the name of the complainant through other means and therefore the necessity of informing the Gardai of his identity did not arise.
In November 1995, the Mid Western Health Board informed the Eastern Health Board in whose region Maynooth College is situated, that this allegation had been made against Monsignor Ledwith. At a meeting of the three relevant Health Boards in February 1996, a decision was made that the hierarchy should be contacted to establish Monsignor Ledwith’s whereabouts and that the Department of Education should be informed of the allegation. Accordingly, in April 1996, a letter was written to the Secretary of the Department of Education informing the Department that an allegation of sexual abuse had been made against Monsignor Michael Ledwith, former President of Maynooth College. The letter stated « … The Eastern Health Board is concerned that no-one in respect of whom such allegations have been made, and are still under investigation or consideration, should be in direct contact with children or young or vulnerable persons.
« In the circumstances there is no direct action that the Eastern Health Board can take. It is nonetheless of the view, that the Department of Education and the Board of Management or Board of Governors of Maynooth College should be advised so that no young persons are exposed to potential risk. It is to obviate this danger that the Eastern Health Board’s concerns are being made known to you. »
In November 1995, the Mid Western Health Board informed the Eastern Health Board in whose region Maynooth College is situated, that this allegation had been made against Monsignor Ledwith.
216
As recommended by the Department of Education, the Eastern Health Board wrote to Monsignor Matthew O’Donnell and Dr William J. Smyth in Maynooth who were in charge of the pontifical and the national universities respectively and expressed the concern of the Eastern Health Board that Monsignor Ledwith should not be in direct contact with children or young or vulnerable persons. Monsignor Ledwith was not contacted prior to this letter being sent.
The Inquiry is aware that Monsignor Ledwith was on sabbatical in the United States during this period and that the Bishop of Seattle and the authorities in Seattle had been informed by Bishop Comiskey of the allegations against him.
The Trustees of Maynooth College commenced proceedings against Monsignor Ledwith under the « Statutes of Maynooth » and these culminated in Monsignor Ledwith agreeing to retire from his teaching position in Maynooth.
Raymond and his family did not make a complaint to the Gardai but received private counselling paid for by the Diocese of Ferns. Raymond reached a financial settlement with Monsignor Ledwith in respect of civil proceedings commenced by him. A confidentiality clause was a condition of this settlement.
The Mid Western Health Board was concerned with regard to other members of Raymond’s family but no complaint was made in respect of them and therefore the Health Board was not in a position to offer any assistance to them.
THE INQUIRY VIEW ON THE HEALTH BOARD HANDLING OF THE MONSIGNOR LEDWITH CASE :
• Bishop Comiskey did not reveal the identity of the complainant to the SEHB but did inform them of Health Board area in which he resided. Accordingly, Dr Rogers (acting DCC) informed that Board of the allegation. The Inquiry believes that confidentiality should be maintained as far as possible in dealing with complainants although it would recognise that the paramountcy of child protection may not always allow that to happen.
• An issue arises as to whether the Health Board was correct in informing the authorities in Maynooth without first communicating with Monsignor Ledwith whose address in the United States was readity available. This fell short of compliance with the judgement of Barr J [55] and illustrates once again the difficulty of attempting to exercise powers which are inferred from general provisions and not expressly granted.
55 MQ .v. Robert Gleeson & Ors. [1997]IEHE 26
217
MONSIGNOR MICHAEL LEDWITH
(I) RAYMOND
On 5 January 1995, Dr A. Rogers, acting Director of Community Care, wrote to Chief Superintendent Murphy in Wexford with notification of information received from Bishop Comiskey in relation to allegations of sexual abuse against Monsignor Michael Ledwith. Dr Rogers had met with Bishop Comiskey on 23 December 1994 and was informed of the allegations made by Raymond (4.6.2) – Bishop Comiskey would not identify him further. Raymond alleged that he had been abused by Monsignor Michael Ledwith in the mid 1980s when he was aged approximately 14 years.
The Chief Superintendent met with Dr Rogers and Dr Liddy and in January 1995, gave the file to Superintendent Smith in Wexford for investigation.
In February, Bishop Comiskey wrote to the relevant Health Board and Superintendent Smith stating that the complainant had refused to allow the Bishop to disclose his identity. However, Bishop Comiskey did provide the name of Raymond’s solicitor.
In May 1995, Superintendent Smith, then in Naas, prepared a report for the Chief Superintendent in Wexford. The report stated that the Superintendent had contacted the complainant’s solicitors who were not prepared to release the identity of the complainant. The Assistant Commissioner was notified on the following day.
In July 1995, the Chief Superintendent of a different area was advised by Inspector Kerin that Monsignor Ledwith had a holiday home and Gardai had conducted a limited surveillance on that premises with a view to ensuring that young persons were not frequenting it. Such surveillance did not produce any evidence of wrongdoing on the part of Monsignor Ledwith. It was pointed out by Gardai that surveillance is a resource not available for every investigation and it is usually carried out on the basis of specific information.
Between July 1995 and February 1996, several attempts were made by Gardai to encourage the alleged victim to meet with them and report the matter. Further inquiries were also made at various locations where Monsignor Ledwith, lived, worked and holidayed.
On 2 February 1996, Superintendent James Kehoe wrote to the Chief Superintendent with a report on the matter. This stated that the family of the complainant would still not cooperate with the Gardai. Further updates were sent in June and August 1996, from the investigating officers confirming that there had been no change in the case.
240
(II) SHANE
On 19 April 2000, Detective Garda Malachy Dunne met with Shane (4.6.3) as a result of contact from a firm of solicitors. A detailed statement of complaint was taken in relation to allegations of sexual abuse by Monsignor Ledwith at St. Patrick’s College Maynooth on two occasions in November 1994. These allegations were categorically denied by Monsignor Ledwith.
As a result of the allegations made, twelve people were interviewed and provided Garda statements. The interviews uncovered a number of inconsistencies in the original statement made by Shane.
On 31 May 2001, Garda Dunne met again with Shane. During the meeting, Shane indicated that the incident described in his first complaint was inaccurate. He then claimed that what had been alleged as abuse was consensual. On 20 June 200I, the allegations of criminal wrongdoing were retracted. Following Shane’s retraction of the allegations made, Garda Dunne informed all relevant persons. Monsignor Ledwith vehemently denied that any relationship with Shane occurred.
In May 2002, a file was prepared for the DPP recommending that because of Shane’s psychological state of mind, a prosecution for making a false statement should not be pursued. In November 2002, the DPP directed no prosecution in respect of either Monsignor Ledwith or Shane.
THE INQUIRY VIEW ON THE GARDA HANDLING OF THE MONSIGNOR LEDWITH CASE:
The Inquiry is satisfied that An Garda Siochama carried out as full and effective an investigation of the allegations made on behalf of Raymond as could have been undertaken without his co-operation.
The complaint by Raymond illustrates the dilemma faced by many complainants of sexual abuse who, whilst wishing to see the perpetrator punished, are fearful of being identified as a victim of such abuse. Even if he was granted confidentiality by the courts, details of the evidence could identify him and he was understandably concerned about the effect that would have on his family. The Inquiry believes that this is one of the main impediments to victims making a complaint to the Gardai. The Inquiry believes that this fear, whilst understandable, is not properly informed. The Courts can and do effectively protect the identity of victims in sexual abuse cases.
The comprehensive investigation of the allegations made by Shane are noteworthy as an illustration that such investigations may provide an effective protection for those who believe themselves wrongly accused of a criminal offence.
241
En janvier 2016 aux États-Unis dans l’État de Washington (où réside Judith « Zebra » Knight et où M. Ledwith est en activité), le diocèse de Seattle a mis en avant une volonté de transparence et d’accompagnement des victimes d’abus sexuels sur mineurs pour diffuser une liste d’anciens et d’actuels membres de l’Église catholique soupçonnés de ce type de délits de façon « établie », « admise » ou « crédible ». M. Ledwith y est cité parmi les 77 noms comprenant des décédés, des défroqués ainsi que des membres du clergé privés de ministère public.
Retour aux >> CHRONIQUES
Sources :
• Rapport Fens => bishop-accountability.org/ferns/
• Corey Guardian => independent.ie/regionals/goreyguardian/news/monsignor-michael-ledwith-is-named-in-civil-suit-by-exstudent-27287631.html
et => independent.ie/regionals/enniscorthyguardian/news/monsignor-ledwith-dismissed-from-priesthood-by-the-pope-27182838.html
• Amnesty International, « In Plain Sight – Responding to the Ferns, Ryan, Murphy and Cloyne Reports »
=> amnesty.ie/sites/default/files/INPLAINSIGHT%20(WEB_VERSION).pdf
unsouffledelavie 