Monsignor Dooley gets his wings clipped
Monsignor Maurice Dooley's intenvention in the Cardinal Brady crisis triggered an avalanche of angry reaction from the public. Speaking on Tuesday's Talkback programme, he told me that Sean Brady had no moral or legal obligation to report allegations of child abuse to the police, and suggested that oaths of confidentiality may still be used by the Catholic Church. Today, his bishop, Dermot Clifford, Archbishop of Cashel & Emly and Apostolic Administrator of the Diocese of Cloyne, has distanced himself and the church from the monsignor's views:
Archbishop Clifford says: "The views expressed in the media in recent days by Mgr Maurice Dooley, a priest of Archdiocese of Cashel & Emly, with regard to the reporting of safeguarding concerns to the appropriate State authorities are his own personal views. As his bishop and on behalf of the Archdiocese of Cashel and Emly, I want to state that all concerns that come to light are reported fully and without delay to the State authorities. I want to give that assurance to all who may have heard Monsignor Dooley's remarks. Such views do not represent the policy or the practice of the Catholic Church in Ireland today concerning the reporting of allegations of abuse to the civil authorities, North and South. The policy and practice of this diocese, and every diocese, is to report all allegations to the statutory authorities. As a consequence, I have spoken to Monsignor Dooley today and he assures me that he will not be speaking again in this controversy. I regret the distress, anger, and confusion that Mgr Dooley's remarks have caused in recent days to all concerned."
Picture: Monsignor Maurice Dooley. Listen again to the interview with Mgr Dooley here (scroll forward to 30 mins).
Comment number 1.
At 18th Mar 2010, Golfie wrote:I wonder did he have to sign an oath of silence ???
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 18th Mar 2010, The Christian Hippy wrote:Monsignor Doolally
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 18th Mar 2010, David Kerr wrote:"Sean Brady had no moral or legal obligation to report allegations of child abuse to the police, and suggested that oaths of confidentiality may still be used by the Catholic Church."
There is a very foreign culture in our midst. It looks like he is in trouble for revealing the thinking of this ‘church’.
DK
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
At 18th Mar 2010, Valerie Christie wrote:The Archbishop may say that these are Monsignor Dooley's personal views, but at the end of the day actions do speak louder than words and the fact that this wasn't reported by anyone at the time shows that a lot of priests etc not just this guy felt they had no moral obligation to report crimes to the proper authorities. It is scary to think that so many people saw the church as spritual guardians when they clearly lack the capacity for right action.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 4)
Comment number 5.
At 18th Mar 2010, allybalder wrote:Reformed religions should not take the high moral ground too quickly as there will be eventually more revelations about abuse and hypocritical behaviour in other religious organisations. It will take some very courageous victims to come forward and start the avalanche.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 5)
Comment number 6.
At 18th Mar 2010, allybalder wrote:The Great Catholic Cover-Up
The pope's entire career has the stench of evil about it
see
Complain about this comment (Comment number 6)
Comment number 7.
At 18th Mar 2010, Interestedpartyx wrote:I think Rev. Dooley has dome some great work over the years. I have met him many times and he is kind and witty. I googled him, and he worked with TG4 on a wonderful programme called Ar BhóithrÃn Na Smaointe (On Memory Road) . He taught in St Patrick’s College, Kiltegan, for two years, and St Patrick’s College, Thurles, for 28 years, holding the post of professor of Canon Law. For over 20 years he has also acted as a representative for the Holy See at Council of Europe committee meetings in Strasbourg dealing with health and bioethics. He became PP of Loughmore in 1992. Monsignor Dooley is also a noted historian. He is a highly-regarded parish priest, but a man with Can Law convictions.
Let it be clear, he has never been involved with any child abuse scandals in Ireland or anywhere else. He did, however, put forward his view about Canon Law.
All over Ireland, there are families destroyed by abuse (abuse victims and the families of abusers). Our hearts go out to them all. It is a very sad time for the Catholic Church.
Rev. Dooley has never hurt anyone. He spoke perhaps with his lawyer cap on and came accross as callous, but he is not. Dooley has done Ireland proud in his work around the world and should not be the focus of this debate. The abusers are the ones that deserve our anger and judgement. Not an elderly Monsignor of Canon Law.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 7)
Comment number 8.
At 18th Mar 2010, Interestedpartyx wrote:I think Rev. Dooley has dome some great work over the years. I have met him many times and he is kind and witty. I googled him, and he worked with TG4 on a wonderful programme called Ar BhóithrÃn Na Smaointe (On Memory Road) . He taught in St Patrick’s College, Kiltegan, for two years, and St Patrick’s College, Thurles, for 28 years, holding the post of professor of Canon Law. For over 20 years he has also acted as a representative for the Holy See at Council of Europe committee meetings in Strasbourg dealing with health and bioethics. He became PP of Loughmore in 1992. Monsignor Dooley is also a noted historian. He is a highly-regarded parish priest, but a man with Canon Law convictions.
Let it be clear, he has never been involved with any child abuse scandals in Ireland or anywhere else. He did, however, put forward his view about Canon Law.
All over Ireland, there are families destroyed by abuse (abuse victims and the families of abusers). Our hearts go out to them all. It is a very sad time for the Catholic Church.
Rev. Dooley has never hurt anyone. He spoke perhaps with his lawyer cap on and came accross as callous, but he is not. Dooley has done Ireland proud in his work around the world and should not be the focus of this debate. The abusers are the ones that deserve our anger and judgement. Not an elderly Monsignor of Canon Law.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 8)
Comment number 9.
At 18th Mar 2010, David Kerr wrote:If he is 'that' involved in Canon law I would be amazed if he did not have some of these matters cross his desk.
Let's have a global investigation to clear the name of the good people. Would you agree Interestedpartyx?
Regards
DK
Complain about this comment (Comment number 9)
Comment number 10.
At 18th Mar 2010, Parrhasios wrote:Is a transcript or recording of Monsignor Dooley's interview available for those of us who did not hear the original broadcast?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 10)
Comment number 11.
At 19th Mar 2010, Interestedpartyx wrote:Yes DK. I agree.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 11)
Comment number 12.
At 19th Mar 2010, Heliopolitan wrote:Surely the point that Mr Dooley and many people seem oblivious to is that "canon law" is utterly irrelevant, and does not provide a loophole against real law or real moral obligations, any more than the club rules in some kid's treehouse. Dooley's comments were arrogant and ignorant, and all too typical of sham-meisters.
It's time to take down the treehouse.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 12)
Comment number 13.
At 19th Mar 2010, Rusticatus wrote:I confess a smidgeon of sympathy for Maurice Dooley. In his conceit he fell into the trap of believing that words have an objective meaning. Wittgenstein called this the bewitchment of the mind by means of language. In Realpolitik words mean what those in authority say they mean. Everyone knows that in the Catholic Church this applies to everything, even the Bible.
Sean Brady took seriously his obligation of secrecy in regard to those 1975 proceedings and it simply would not have occurred to him to ask his bishop (who we understand was also a personal friend), "What ever became of that boyo in Kilnacrott?" just as indeed, regardless of how tempted he may have been in recent months, he will not have said anything to any of his brother bishops, not even the Pope. Some might call that integrity. Those who condemn him do not appear to grasp the fundamental difference between personal sin and personal tragedy (in the original Greek sense of that term).
Complain about this comment (Comment number 13)
Comment number 14.
At 19th Mar 2010, alphafantomas wrote:I have no axe to grind with religion or the church but I would urge caution to interestedpartyx. Claiming categorically that any member of the church has played no part in any of the abuse or cover-up is just ridiculous. Brady, for example, did not volunteer any of his past but was forced to comment as it was put before him. There may yet be more revelations and Dooley's comments have alarmed many who feel that the victim is not front and centre in these issues. Notice however that Clifford only told him to keep quiet on the matter; not to change his view or qualify what he meant. How can these people put Canon Law above the need for the rape of a child to be dealt with by the authorities? By covering these things up I wonder if it denied the proper counselling and care to be provided to the victims and their families? That to me is wicked. Perhaps someone here knows more and can enlighten me on how that can ever be justified?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 14)
Comment number 15.
At 20th Mar 2010, John Bettelley wrote:Astonishing that Mr Dooley is still employed by the catholic church in Ireland.
In any other responsible organisation in the world, Mr Dooley would have been fired summarily, and his bosses would be able to make much of their action.
Sadly, it's business as usual for these people, and (I suppose just occasionally) they wonder why the general public feel such revulsion for them and their organisation.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 15)
Comment number 16.
At 21st Mar 2010, Kennys_Heroes wrote:Is that all Clifford has done??!!
Is he not even going to transfer Dooley to another parish?
Yes, I am being facetious. Clifford should have at the very least relieved Dooley of his duties and responsibilities within the Church. He has effectively just been told to hush up.
I think I've seen that before.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 16)