Bishop of Clonfert John Kirby (top) has denied yesterday’s front page story in the Irish Times.

Its author Patsy McGarry (above), who was critical about the journalism and the journalists behind Mission to Prey, went on RTE’s Drivetime last night, hosted by a, perhaps inevitably, hostile Mary Wilson.

[Conspiracy-lovers will note The Communications Clinic, whose co-owner is RTE board chairman Tom Savage, represents the church’s side here and that RTE News did not cover the original story, only the denial]

Mary Wilson: “It’s a strong statement from Bishop Kirby, Patsy. And he emphatically said he did not know, he had no knowledge, or suspicion, he says, that Priest A continued to abuse children subsequent to his learning of his conduct in 1990. And he says it is incorrect to suggest that he had any knowledge.”

McGarry: “Well Mary, my information is otherwise. I should say by the way the conflict is not between me and Bishop Kirby, it’s between the sources of my information and Bishop Kirby. And we, and I, are standing by our sources. We’ve put a lot of time and energy into this story since September when we were first contacted, or I was first contacted by one particular person and I’ve spoken to others since then.”

Wilson: “All right, well can you tell us about your sources and what you sources have said?”

McGarry: “Well I can only tell you so much, as you understand Mary about my sources. But they’re utterly reliable, sound people.”

Wilson: “How many sources?”

McGarry: “There are three at least involved. And their story was, as reported in today’s paper. That the bishop moved Priest A, on foot of information that he had been abusing children in Kiltormer parish, or a boy in Kiltormer parish as it happened. And the priest continued, Priest A, he’s now liacised, continued to abuse children in the parish to which he was moved, five was the number I was given. And that he also continued the boy he was abusing in the previous parish. This..Bishop KIrby, it came to his attention before 1994 and 1998 which was when Priest A was serving a sentence. He was sentenced to ten years in jail in the following trial because he admitted guilt, when it came to the abuse of this boy. Five years were commuted and he served four of those and was released in 1994 for good behaviour. During that period when he was in Arbour Hill Prison, he was visited by Bishop Kirby, who had himself been visited by a mother in the diocese who was concerned because of the behaviour of her son, wondering was he too a victim of Priest A. So Bishop Kirby went to Priest A, visited him, and asked him for a list of the victims. And my information is that he supplied that list to Bishop Kirby.”

Wilson: “Patsy, was Bishop Kirby alone during that meeting with the priest?”

McGarry: “To the best of my knowledge, yes.”

Wilson: “So how do you know that this information changed hands?”

McGarry: “Well he showed it to other people. He showed the list to other people afterwards,”

Wilson: “But…”

McGarry: “…including the mother who had requested him to find out whether her son was abused by Priest A. And he hadn’t been.”

Wilson: “But it’s fair to say that you have no evidence of the exchange of that information, during that meeting between the bishop and prisoner, Priest A in Arbour Hill. Have you any confirmation that the visit took place?

McGarry: “Yes. I mean through third parties, I have confirmed basically to the satisfaction, to my satisfaction, to the satisfaction of my paper, to the satisfaction of our lawyers the facts that I’m lodging.”

Wilson: “The bishop, as I’m looking at his statement, doesn’t mention the Arbour Hill visit in the statement itself.”

McGarry: “No. There are lots of things he doesn’t mention in his statement Mary. My report today was quite detailed, as you will have seen. And it was presented to Bishop Kirby three weeks ago today in the detail you see in today’s paper. And Bishop Kirby, I did it through the (Catholic) Communications Office in Maynooth, which acts for the Irish bishops, and Bishop Kirby got back to the Communications Office and asked to meet me to discuss what I’d raised with them. I agreed to that meeting and said it would be on the record. And I was told there would be sensitive issues involved. I pointed out that I really didn’t want to know, or that it wasn’t necessary for me to know, any personal details about the victims, that really, the numbers were the issue. And the meeting was to take place coincident with the bishops’ autumn meeting, which took place the week before last. And on the very last day of that, the bishop sought a meeting on the 26th of September, I was emailed a letter from Bishop Kirby, through the Communications Office in Maynooth, saying he was declining to go ahead with the meeting. He felt that it might cause further upset for victims.

Continue reading →