The news media may shift their attentions away from the plight of Cardinal Sean Brady today -- if only temporarily -- as we learn more details about the involvement of the Bishop of Derry, Dr Seamus Hegarty, in an to cover up alleged child sexual abuse.
T is reporting that an alleged victim of child sexual abuse was paid 拢12,000 in December 2000 and required to sign a confidentiality agreement.
It is claimed that the victim in this case was subjected to sexual abuse by an unnamed priest over a 10-year period from the age of 8.
According to Ian Elliott, chief executive of the, out of court settlements are "not acceptable". The Diocese of Derry has refused to comment on the allegations until it checks its official records.
The alleged victim's father has told the Belfast Telegraph that her family had not gone to the police at the time because "it was not the culture" in Derry to do so. That appears to be a reference to the unwillingness of many Catholics and nationalists at the time to have any contact with the Royal Ulster Constabulary.
It may be that the diocese, when they have examined their files, will argue that this financial settlement was considered appropriate at the time because the normal route of a police investigation -- and, thus, the criminal courts -- was blocked as a consequence of the controversial nature of policing in Northern Ireland.
If that argument is deployed, it will not satisfy many victims and survivors of abuse, and questions will remain unanswered about the fact that neither the alleged abuser nor the diocese accepted any liability in this civil action in respect of a decade-long spate of abuse.
Instead, we are told, that the closest the priest in question came to an admission of guilt was a handwritten letter, attached to the civil agreement, in which he apologised to the alleged victim's family for "for any pain I caused you through inappropriate gesture or mistaken signs of affection".
When an alleged paedophile who has abused an eight-year-old child describes that molestation as a "mistaken sign of affection", that is clearly a sign that the abuser is still unwilling to fully accept that he is an abuser. Any secrecy mechanism that permits an abuser to disguise the nature or extent of his abuse is extremely dangerous and may leave other children vulnerable to abuse in the future.
These are some of the questions now facing the Bishop of Derry:
1. What were the circumstances of the alleged abuse?
2. How did the church learn of the abuse allegations?
3. What action was taken to deal with the allegations?
4. Who was told about the allegations?
5. Did the alleged abuser, the priest, admit guilt in any meetings with church officials?
6. Who took the decision not to involve the police in the investigation of the complaints?
7. Was any effort made to persuade the family that they should contact the police or become involved in a police-led investigation?
8. Who suggested that this case should be resolved by means of a civil action?
9. How was the compensation figure of 拢12,000 agreed?
10. How many other confidentiality agreements have been signed with alleged victims of abuse?
11. Why was the alleged abuser permitted to avoid any admission of criminal responsibility?
12. What action was taken to remove the alleged abuser from the priesthood?
13. If the alleged abuser was removed from the priesthood, was he then permitted to move into another career in which he had contact with children?
14. Do the alleged abusers' subsequent employers have any knowledge of the abuse allegations he faced in the year 2000?
15. If the alleged abuser subsequently abused another child, would the church have an legal liabilities or moral responsibility in respect of that abuse?