A thought-provoking piece this. I am struck by the phrase ‘following their conscience rather than legal advisers’. I know that in my endeavours to flush the truth out of the Vincentian Order regarding Castleknock College, legal advice has been invoked to justify blatant obstruction and hostile silence.
I am not a legal expert but I remain rather baffled as to why obstruction on child abuse matters is not a basis for criminal prosecution. Maybe it would require new legislation, I have no idea. But something needs to be done to change/tilt legal advisers’ calculation when it comes to advising the likes of the Jesuit Order as to the legal implications of withholding evidence of wrongdoing.
At the moment, it would appear that the likes of the Jesuit or Vincentian Orders believe that they have a free pass to obstruct and withhold information without any serious legal ramifications for them. This needs to change. The current paradigm of drip drip revelations followed by opprobrium needs to give way to a legal obligation for full and frank disclosure.
My proposal would be something along the lines that the Heads of Clerical Orders are questioned publicly under Oath with no Right to Silence. The questions would be compiled by survivors and interested parties who have been investigating past abuse cases. If a verbal cross examination is too culturally McCarthyesque, I believe the questions and answers could be conducted by email. The key would be to have the Q & A in the public domain and a legal duty to tell the truth.
I am happy for this proposal to be shot down as I am no legal expert but what I am not happy about is the routine obstruction into historical child abuse based on ‘legal advice’. That has to change.
I am expecting my proposal to be dismissed or more likely, just ignored. However, I would just add that a legal duty to make a full and frank disclosure is not without precedent.
One’s tax returns for example are compiled with the legal obligation for a full disclosure. Partial disclosure is not legally acceptable. Yet partial and sullen disclosure has been the religious Orders’ paradigmatic approach to historical child abuse.
Clearly, their obstruction is morally repugnant. Most reasonable people can see that. But why is this passively aggressive partial disclosure that the religious Orders’ usually deploy somehow viewed as being legally acceptable?
Perhaps a more apt example might be bankruptcy proceedings. Partial disclosure here again is simply not tolerated. In the case of the moral bankruptcy of the religious orders’ failure to disclose child abuse - it shouldn’t be either.
I'm no legal expert either but I have a feeling that religious orders are inclined to hide the truth for several reasons, including repetitional damage and not least the risk of being found liable with all that this would imply for their financial resources. What bamboozles me is the way that these people profess to be devoted followers of the teachings of Jesus Christ who was very clear about people who harm children and, by implication, who protect those who harm children. Again, no legal expert here, but I wonder what are the legal implications of the religious orders concealing such crimes. I would have thought - or at least hoped - that the people responsible would face considerable penalties.
May I ask if the Castleknock College past pupils have organised together to tackle the Vincentians on this issue? In the case of Marmion, of course, it was the relentless pressure of one man that forced the issue but I am sure there is strength in numbers.
I am not fully in the picture as regards Castleknock College but here is what I do know:
Former pupils have not got together. I personally came forward in November 2022 and Jack Power at the Irish Times wrote a piece. In February 2023, a second pupil came forward to the police. The second pupil has done so on a confidential basis and I don’t know who he is. He is determined to pursue it on a criminal basis however. As indeed am I. His allegation is against the same priest who now lives in Florida. Both of us are liaising with the police at Blanchardstown who are preparing the file for the Irish state prosecutor. I have been advised not to hold my breath and that the matter might not be pursued . The alleged perpetrator has declined to cooperate with the US police. He has been legally advised not to incriminate himself. There is no evidence that his clerical colleagues advised him to disclose the truth. A frank confession is only good for some souls it would appear.
Once again, I find this right to simply ‘decline’ speaking to the US police hard to fathom. A third pupil has also sent a complaint to the Irish police about the same priest but does not appear to be pursuing it. But his complaint remains on the file.
Of course there could be many more cases of which I am unaware. There is one civil litigation of which I am aware. The Castleknock complainants are an atomised bunch unfortunately. I say unfortunate because in being so atomised, our allegations are more easy to undermine, disparage and resist. While publicly the Head of the Vincentians claims to assist me in getting redress, privately he obstructs me. It’s been an immensely frustrating exercise and the level of clerical mendacity and obstruction that I have encountered has been rather disheartening.
I tried the canonical process but that was not conducted in good faith.
The Irish police and state prosecutor appear to have larger fish to fry than pursue this perpetrator. All that remains is to go public and see if that possibly changes anything.
I think it would be wise at least to threaten to go public. This can concentrate the clerical mind as we saw in the Marmion case. The many complainants against Marmion were, to, an atomised group until the admission from the Jesuits. I think it was a considerable help that Marmion was already dead; pursuing an accused who is living is fraught with all kinds of issues, not least legal action for defamation. Has this man been credibly accused? These words have a very specific meaning in the RC church; if he has been, it would be a great help. The Garda are usually very helpful in these cases but problems arise when the case is elevated to the DPP's office. It's not that they are obstructed here but a decision has to be made on the likelihood of conviction. The fact that the Castleknock accused is in another jurisdiction is unfortunate in this respect.
If the canonical inquiry had been conducted in good faith, it would have have been easy to establish my credibility. However, it wasn’t. They weren’t interested in establishing the truth. It was an exercise in obstruction.
Forgive the bluntness of what follows:
I have been very careful not to exaggerate what happened to me at Castleknock. Unlike what happened to Chris Doris at Blackrock say, I was not orally raped. Nor was I penetrated. However, my rugby trainer put me on his bed at 11pm one night and got me to lower my pyjamas to massage a groin injury. I was around 13 at the time. The previous year, he did something similar in the drying room.
I outlined this for the canonical inquiry. The alleged perpetrator accepted this happened but claims I have drawn the wrong conclusions from my experience. This is a priest who also showered with us and would stare at one’s penis incessantly throughout.
I asked Fr Paschal Scallon - the top Vincentian at Castleknock. - in writing if the canonical inquiry has established that my genitals were exposed on his bed while he massaged me (late at night) and he refused to answer.
Behind a simpering Friar Tuck friendliness, I have found Fr Scallon to be evasive and secretive. Needless to say, I no longer trust him.
By any standards this is abusive behaviour, Tom. It's outrageous that a priest in a position of considerable responsibility is unwilling to accept that.
Yes, it’s almost like the clerical abuse comes in two waves: there is the initial wave when one is a young child being manipulated by authority figures who mess with one’s head and then progress to other parts of one’s anatomy.
Then there’s the second wave: where one has to stomach the mendacity of desensitised representatives of the religious orders who are invariably in genial-looking guise.
Regarding the first wave of abuse, I personally would have settled for an apology on the Castleknock College website and some recognition of the damage that was done.
When I encounter the second wave of abuse - which incidentally I find a lot more hurtful - I am reminded of Milan Kundera’s phrase:
‘’The struggle of man against power is the struggle of memory against forgetting’’
A thought-provoking piece this. I am struck by the phrase ‘following their conscience rather than legal advisers’. I know that in my endeavours to flush the truth out of the Vincentian Order regarding Castleknock College, legal advice has been invoked to justify blatant obstruction and hostile silence.
I am not a legal expert but I remain rather baffled as to why obstruction on child abuse matters is not a basis for criminal prosecution. Maybe it would require new legislation, I have no idea. But something needs to be done to change/tilt legal advisers’ calculation when it comes to advising the likes of the Jesuit Order as to the legal implications of withholding evidence of wrongdoing.
At the moment, it would appear that the likes of the Jesuit or Vincentian Orders believe that they have a free pass to obstruct and withhold information without any serious legal ramifications for them. This needs to change. The current paradigm of drip drip revelations followed by opprobrium needs to give way to a legal obligation for full and frank disclosure.
My proposal would be something along the lines that the Heads of Clerical Orders are questioned publicly under Oath with no Right to Silence. The questions would be compiled by survivors and interested parties who have been investigating past abuse cases. If a verbal cross examination is too culturally McCarthyesque, I believe the questions and answers could be conducted by email. The key would be to have the Q & A in the public domain and a legal duty to tell the truth.
I am happy for this proposal to be shot down as I am no legal expert but what I am not happy about is the routine obstruction into historical child abuse based on ‘legal advice’. That has to change.
By way of a P.S.
I am expecting my proposal to be dismissed or more likely, just ignored. However, I would just add that a legal duty to make a full and frank disclosure is not without precedent.
One’s tax returns for example are compiled with the legal obligation for a full disclosure. Partial disclosure is not legally acceptable. Yet partial and sullen disclosure has been the religious Orders’ paradigmatic approach to historical child abuse.
Clearly, their obstruction is morally repugnant. Most reasonable people can see that. But why is this passively aggressive partial disclosure that the religious Orders’ usually deploy somehow viewed as being legally acceptable?
Perhaps a more apt example might be bankruptcy proceedings. Partial disclosure here again is simply not tolerated. In the case of the moral bankruptcy of the religious orders’ failure to disclose child abuse - it shouldn’t be either.
Hi Tom
I'm no legal expert either but I have a feeling that religious orders are inclined to hide the truth for several reasons, including repetitional damage and not least the risk of being found liable with all that this would imply for their financial resources. What bamboozles me is the way that these people profess to be devoted followers of the teachings of Jesus Christ who was very clear about people who harm children and, by implication, who protect those who harm children. Again, no legal expert here, but I wonder what are the legal implications of the religious orders concealing such crimes. I would have thought - or at least hoped - that the people responsible would face considerable penalties.
May I ask if the Castleknock College past pupils have organised together to tackle the Vincentians on this issue? In the case of Marmion, of course, it was the relentless pressure of one man that forced the issue but I am sure there is strength in numbers.
Hi Tom,
Thank you for this.
I am not fully in the picture as regards Castleknock College but here is what I do know:
Former pupils have not got together. I personally came forward in November 2022 and Jack Power at the Irish Times wrote a piece. In February 2023, a second pupil came forward to the police. The second pupil has done so on a confidential basis and I don’t know who he is. He is determined to pursue it on a criminal basis however. As indeed am I. His allegation is against the same priest who now lives in Florida. Both of us are liaising with the police at Blanchardstown who are preparing the file for the Irish state prosecutor. I have been advised not to hold my breath and that the matter might not be pursued . The alleged perpetrator has declined to cooperate with the US police. He has been legally advised not to incriminate himself. There is no evidence that his clerical colleagues advised him to disclose the truth. A frank confession is only good for some souls it would appear.
Once again, I find this right to simply ‘decline’ speaking to the US police hard to fathom. A third pupil has also sent a complaint to the Irish police about the same priest but does not appear to be pursuing it. But his complaint remains on the file.
Of course there could be many more cases of which I am unaware. There is one civil litigation of which I am aware. The Castleknock complainants are an atomised bunch unfortunately. I say unfortunate because in being so atomised, our allegations are more easy to undermine, disparage and resist. While publicly the Head of the Vincentians claims to assist me in getting redress, privately he obstructs me. It’s been an immensely frustrating exercise and the level of clerical mendacity and obstruction that I have encountered has been rather disheartening.
I tried the canonical process but that was not conducted in good faith.
The Irish police and state prosecutor appear to have larger fish to fry than pursue this perpetrator. All that remains is to go public and see if that possibly changes anything.
I think it would be wise at least to threaten to go public. This can concentrate the clerical mind as we saw in the Marmion case. The many complainants against Marmion were, to, an atomised group until the admission from the Jesuits. I think it was a considerable help that Marmion was already dead; pursuing an accused who is living is fraught with all kinds of issues, not least legal action for defamation. Has this man been credibly accused? These words have a very specific meaning in the RC church; if he has been, it would be a great help. The Garda are usually very helpful in these cases but problems arise when the case is elevated to the DPP's office. It's not that they are obstructed here but a decision has to be made on the likelihood of conviction. The fact that the Castleknock accused is in another jurisdiction is unfortunate in this respect.
If the canonical inquiry had been conducted in good faith, it would have have been easy to establish my credibility. However, it wasn’t. They weren’t interested in establishing the truth. It was an exercise in obstruction.
Forgive the bluntness of what follows:
I have been very careful not to exaggerate what happened to me at Castleknock. Unlike what happened to Chris Doris at Blackrock say, I was not orally raped. Nor was I penetrated. However, my rugby trainer put me on his bed at 11pm one night and got me to lower my pyjamas to massage a groin injury. I was around 13 at the time. The previous year, he did something similar in the drying room.
I outlined this for the canonical inquiry. The alleged perpetrator accepted this happened but claims I have drawn the wrong conclusions from my experience. This is a priest who also showered with us and would stare at one’s penis incessantly throughout.
I asked Fr Paschal Scallon - the top Vincentian at Castleknock. - in writing if the canonical inquiry has established that my genitals were exposed on his bed while he massaged me (late at night) and he refused to answer.
Behind a simpering Friar Tuck friendliness, I have found Fr Scallon to be evasive and secretive. Needless to say, I no longer trust him.
By any standards this is abusive behaviour, Tom. It's outrageous that a priest in a position of considerable responsibility is unwilling to accept that.
Yes, it’s almost like the clerical abuse comes in two waves: there is the initial wave when one is a young child being manipulated by authority figures who mess with one’s head and then progress to other parts of one’s anatomy.
Then there’s the second wave: where one has to stomach the mendacity of desensitised representatives of the religious orders who are invariably in genial-looking guise.
Regarding the first wave of abuse, I personally would have settled for an apology on the Castleknock College website and some recognition of the damage that was done.
When I encounter the second wave of abuse - which incidentally I find a lot more hurtful - I am reminded of Milan Kundera’s phrase:
‘’The struggle of man against power is the struggle of memory against forgetting’’