A number of other alleged victims of paedophile priest Con Cunningham have now come forward.
It follows allegations made by sisters Margaret and Paula Martin over the Church’s failure to listen to their claims of abuse at the hands of the shamed cleric in the Fanad area decades ago.
Last week the Tirconail Tribune carried out an extensive investigation into the abuse carried out by the cleric.
This week’s edition of the paper says the floodgates are now being “prised open” surrounding the new allegations of sex abuse against Cunningham.
It has emerged that a number of other ‘abused victims’ are struggling with their trauma in coming forward revealing their ‘lost and stolen’ lives at the hands of priests whom they trusted implicitly.
Editor John McAteer says they have been informed there are victims who have not come forward because they live, paralysed in fear of being exposed to cross-examination in the witness box of the courts.
There is disbelief that Fr. Con Cunningham remained in active ministry for 16 years during his ‘retirement’ in the parish of Carrick in South Donegal.
The Tribune addressed queries to Bishop McGuckian in relation to issues raised on clerical sex abuse.
His response reads: “The Bishop gave an extensive interview with Greg Hughes on Highland Radio on Friday 3rd of January answering questions about the case of Con Cunningham. There will be no further comment at this time.”
Tribune editor John McAteer says that in light of last week’s revelations by the Martin sisters, Margaret and Paula, serious questions and concerns have been raised in relation to Bishop McGuckian’s response: in his failure to name them personally or to offer them a single word of support or an apology of any kind on behalf of the Church.
Meanwhile, it has emerged that a number of those ‘in the religous life’ and families of the abused are unhappy that the Bishop’s remarks fell far short of what the victims would have expected.
The community in the parish of Carrick have reacted with anger to the allegations about the behaviour of Fr. Con Cunningham and how they were rejected by clerical sources and the Gardai.
Leading community figures have expressed absolute anger that the first time they became officially aware of the risks posed was when he appeared in court in 2018 and was found guilty in relation to sex abuse charges and given a nine-month jail sentence.
Judge John Almyer said “the offences were on the higher end of the scale”.
Carrick parishioners have decribed how between 2002 and 2018 ‘We were left hung out to dry’ as they revealed their deepest fears about this ‘retired priest’.
Residents of Carrick have recalled in detail their concerns over the ‘bizarre behaviour’ of the former parish priest who served in Falcarragh until 2002.
They’ve explained how they were forced to carry out their own ‘observations’ for 16 years and how this man remained in the ‘active’ priesthood.
Parishioners recall how Fr. Cunningham continued to participate at burials saying the final rosary at gravesides in the local cemetery, dressed in full clerical garb [with his white collar tucked away.
“He was welcomed into the Church for Mass on Sundays by the Parish Priest – parishioners have spoken of their concerns that he was free to come and go to the sacristy where altar servers were present”.
We’ve been told that this priest continued to celebrate Mass in the presence of ‘a congregation’ in his own house for many years and he was known to everybody as ‘Fr. Con’.
On a much more serious legal level, parishioners and parents and others brought their deep concerns and experience of this priest’s behaviour to the attention of the revelant authorities with clinical evidence of the problems in their midst.
Clergy and Gardai were contacted and there is revulsion and a deep sense of anger and betrayal in their community that these concerns were rejected out of hand.
Members of the congregation have publicly called on Bishop McGuckian to explain to them why this ‘priest’ continued to live among them for 16 years, and was allowed to continue his priestly ministry unquestioned, without them ever being informed that his presence among children posed any problems.
“To this day no one has ever told the people of Carrick of the dangers of the man, which the Church housed amongst us without one word of warning,” said one resident of the locality.
And as concerns and revelations mount about the cover-up and the pastoral role of the Bishops of the day in their duty of care for their flock, their responses have come under intense scrutiny.
There has been disappointment expressed in Bishop Alan McGuckian’s interview on Highland Radio last Friday during which he accepted the comments of the “sisters” and ignoring the reality that these respected mature women had sterling professional careers.
There is hurt that the Bishop failed to offer any apology or any sense of empathy with the destruction of their innocence and the stolen years of having to endure the darkness of fear, depression and being ignored by the Church.
There was anticipation that the Bishop would have isssued ‘a statement’ in the aftermath of the trauma suffered by the Martin sisters. Others hoped that he would have made a pastoral visit to Fanad over the weekend.
The Bishop acknowledged that the Catholic Church failed victims of abuse, and by today’s standards, such situations were dealt with in a way that was “tragically bad”.
He agreed that there was a “signed admission’ on file from Cunningham and that the complaint by the Martin sisters made to Bishop Hegarty in in 1994 was true.
In the event of no statement from the Diocesan Office, Fr. Pat McGarvey, at his weekend Masses delivered a truly Christian homily, full of compassion, regret, sorrow for the sins committed in the name of the Church and tendering his deepest sympathy and support to the Martin family.
He said that the courage of the Martin sisters has to be acknowledged and there is a possibility that there are others out there in this parish who have been abused and have not yet come forward.
He appealed to anyone suffering in silence not to be afraid because the support they need is there in this community to help them.
He pledged that in his position as parish priest he would reach out to heal the hurt: to pray that victims living in agony and darkness would have the courage to come forward.
As the Fanad Peninsula saw in the New Year with sadness and grief Fr. Pat McGarvey said he was ‘obliged’ in his duty of care to the sisters, Paula and Margaret to respond the issues raised.
He said: “What has happened in the past and over many, many years is sickening beyond words and for many in the community it is difficult to take it in and to understand…. many are struggling and unable to sleep.”
During his homily to a packed and hushed congregation in St. Mary’s Church in Fanavolty, Fr. McGarvey called for an end to the silence saying that only the abusers benefited and he prayed that this generation would be the last one in Fanad left to suffer the pain of these abusers.
Expressing his horror at reading the Tribune’s story, he expressed his heartfelt sympathy and support went out to Paula and Margaret, their families and parents.
Fr. McGarvey reflected on the struggles, the years of pain inflicted on them and his sadness that it happened in the Fanad parish.
His words have truly echoed across Fanad and far beyond and reflected the damage inflicted in Donegal and his own sense of support in the wellbeing and safety of the children and the families of the parish.
Having comprehensively reviewed Bishop McGuckian’s comments with Greg Hughes on Highland Radio on Friday, a leading legal overview on the Tribune’s behalf alleges that “Bishop Hegarty breached legal duties and responsibilities.”
In relation to Bishop McGuckian’s interview on Highland Radio on Friday, a leading barrister said he had examined in legal detail the comments made.
His observations and general legal principles state: “In 1994 no reasonable adult living in Ireland needed “expert” advice to decide whether the sexual and physical abuse of children was a matter for An Garda Siochana.
The ‘experts’ the Bishop alluded to in his interview should be identified. No organisation, individual or Church has the right to delegate criminal investigative functions to selected private individuals (whatever their professed expertise might be).
The decision to investigate is the sole province of An Garda Siochana, not the Church.
The procedures designed and adopted by the Church were bizarre and unlawful in my honest opinion. Bishop Hegarty is now dead and we must respect his memory.
However, while Bishop Hegarty was entitled to have privately arranged psychological assessment by a chosen service or individual – that is no substitute for not informing An Garda Siochana. We have no sight of any evidence that the Gardai were informed.
The legality of Bishop Hegarty’s response in not informing the Gardai is something only a jury could decide after hearing all the evidence.
I am saying that he clearly breached several well established legal duties and principles in deciding not to immediately report the matter in its entirety to An Garda Siochana.
It is not illegal to refer a priest to a psychologist. But the Bishop’s failure to report the matter in its entirety to An Garda Siochana immediately was a clear breach of numerous well-established legal duties and principles. It is very difficult to understand.
The experts’ reports and Con Cunningham’s letter should have been given to the Martin family at the time.
The Bishop referred to the importance of due process in his interview.
Bishop McGuckian repeatedly suggests that the duty to report sexual or physical abuse of children did not crystallise in Irish law until 2017.
That is not an accurate summation of the relevant laws. Numerous statutory provisions require and assume that criminal conduct must be reported to An Garda Siochana. Furthermore, some statutory provisions make the obstruction, delay or postponement of reporting an offence.
The Criminal Justice Act 1951 refers in its Schedule to “An indictable offence consisting of any form of obstruction of the administration of justice or the enforcement of the law.”
The matters of indictable offences are also addressed in the Criminal Justice Acts of 1999, 2001 and 2011,” added our legal adviser.
Bishop McGuckian acknowledged the accuracy of the ‘signed admission’ by the Martin sisters of their interviews with Bishop Seamus Hegarty in 1994.
We highlighted the enormity of the reponse from all over the Diocese of Raphoe: the outpouring of shock, dismay, concern from other parishes where this curate had served…
We informed the Bishop that over 600 calls are being processed from Ireland.
We told him that Fr. Pat McGarvey PP in Fanad, in his weekend homilies reached out and called for the prayers and sympathy of the community for the Martin Family.
He called on Massgoers to join in hoping that this present generation in Fanad might be the last one to suffer in silence from the horrors visited on family members almost fifty years ago.
Our query continued: “We have also received messages of dismay that the Bishop could not find it possible to issue a statement to the congregation at the weekend and did not offer any reason for not joining them in these dark days in the parish.
There are criticisms that on your Highland Radio 17 minute’ interview you did not offer a single word of apology or regret to the Martin Family.
There are expressions of the most serious concern that when the then parish priest of Falcarragh was finally removed from ministry in 2002, the people of this Diocese and the parish of Carrick were not given any clarity as to where he went or if he was monitored ever since.
In their meetings with the Bishop Philip Boyce, the Martin sisters made a number of demands in relation to their abuser: they sought that he be removed from the ministry and that he would not have any access ever again to children.
For full clarification the statement reads: “We were asked what would help us to have some sort of closure at that time. We requested a signed admission that what we reported was the truth and that Con Cunningham would be removed from his priestly duties and away from contact with children. We were shown an admission signed by Con Cunningham.
Con Cunningham was removed from his then parish of Falcarragh without any explanation.
“The bishop removed him from duties but failed to inform the parents and children of the diocese that he had admitted to abusing children……..”
“We are seeking your clarification on this issue.”
The Martins also remind us that when Con Cunningham appeared at Donegal courthouse in November 2018. Judge John Alymar stated: “The offences are at the higher end of the scale …..”
In his Highland Radio interview, Bishop McGuckian said that a question that rightly arises for people is why he [the alleged abuser] was still in ministry for a further eight years.
“By the standards of today there was no good reason for that. What did happen was there was psychological assessment sought….”
The first assessment was incomplete – the alleged abuser walked out. The other, from his files he could see that the priest was given a glowing report saying he was no threat to children.
Asked how he squared that circle he said: “I don’t know… the assessment was this man is not a threat to children. That was what came out very clearly was a recommendation that he could be a priest and reliably so.”
Asked if he believed them [the Martin sisters] the Bishop said: “Oh absolutely… of course I do. It is clear from my files that Bishop Hegarty believed them….”
Asked who would have considered that report and accepted it, the Bishop’s response was: “It came in… Bishop Hegarty was only the Bishop for another six months… (the report possibly came in after he left the Diocese).”
Surely there are very fundamental questions to answers by whoever made this recommendation.
We said that the question being posed on behalf of the abused victims’ statement to us this morning that such a remark raises issues. The spokesperson said “what if the abused included journalists or former police officers?”
Tags: