´óÏó´«Ã½

That is a question I believe you should put to Sin Feinn as they are always crying "collusion". If as the Ombudsman's report suggests that the RUC colluded with the Roman Catholic church not to have the priest properly investigated, I believe that this decision was taken at Downing Street level(maybe by Edward Heath himself). I heard a former policeman make a vaild point during one of the news bulletins that in every murder situation they can only act from orders from their superiors and he is right. I believe that on this occassion and other occassions like the murder of the Rev Robert Bradford there was political interference from Primeministerial level not to pursue certain lines of inquiry. At the time of the mirder of Rev Robert Braford it was said that he (Rev Bradford) was on the verge of exposing something major scandal.Maybe the people who bombed Claudy, if they had been questioned other things may have come out at the time, who knows.

As stated in the report (6.14,6.15,6.16) collusion entails an element of secrecy and connivance, but the definition provided by Judge Peter Cory is much broader. It would seem that the definition of collusion necessarily includes cooperation, but this is not true in reverse.

The Catholic Church moved Chesney to a parish in Donegal and permitted this "bad man" who was almost certainly involved in the Claudy bombing to continue to perform priestly duties. Is this not more a case of collusion than cooperation?

Interesting that the language of collusion used in the final report concerning the Catholic Church differed significantly from an earlier draft. The Church's role in the collusion could perhaps be said to have been airbrushed out, a decision taken by the Police Ombudsman after all stakeholders had been consulted, including the Catholic Church.

newlach,
your concerns were best evidenced by the contribution of Fr Tim Bartlett, the RC hierarchy's legal beaver, on Sunday Sequence.

This morning's Sunday Sequence session was both interesting and frustrating listening. Given the very difficult 1972 context in which what the Police Ombudsman's public statement refers to as 'the problem of Father Chesney's alleged wrong-doing', a pragmatic decision that the RUC should not proceed with their investigation is understandable, if hard to accept. But what is much harder to understand - and stomach - is that the Catholic Church should have found it morally acceptable to simply post a priest who was regarded by Cardinal Conway, it seems, as 'a very bad man', elsewhere. Would it not have been more moral, however quietly done, to remove him from his priestly post and duties altogether?

Dionysius is quite right. A very serious allegation was being made against Father Chesney. All Bartlett could say was that "he was innocent until proven guilty", The point is that no attempt was made by ANYBODY to find out whether or not he was guilty, least of all the Catholic Church, which allowed him to carry on administering the sacraments to children, travelling freely across the border, and living the last 3 years in Faughan near Derry, etc. Donegal itself, where he was posted, was not exactly an IRA-free zone.

Yet I am reading everywhere that he WAS involved in the bombing. For example, Elizabeth Day, who grew up in Claudy, writes in 'The Observer' that "the involvement of Father James Chesney in the atrocity was well known". The Ombudsman's report found intelligence that he was the IRA's quartermaster in South Derry, EVEN AFTER the Claudy bombing. We are also told that police sniffer dogs found explosive traces in his car when they searched it a few months later. There were even intelligence reports that a large quantity of weapons were being stored at his parochial house. Was all this not outlined to the Cardinal or the Hierarchy when it was known? Why did Conway describe him as 'a very bad man' if he did not have strong evidence of his role in Claudy? Was transfer to Donegal his 'punishment' by the Church for involvement in mass murder?

William:

You are not telling me that three interviews constitute proper investigations. Does mere denial constitute proper evidence? Didn't Peter deny Jesus 3 times, according to the story?

As well as Daly, he was interviewed by Bishop Neil Farren, Daly’s predecessor as Bishop of Derry, to whom he denied the charge; but he did admit that "he had transported some people and this might explain the (explosives) traces in the car". Did Farren accept this explanation? If he did, he was very naive. It also proves that Farren had been given at least this evidence against Chesney by the civil authorities. It beggars belief that he allowed Chesney to continue as a priest when there was at the very least a forensic connection between Chesney and the bombers.

You seem to be implying that police intelligence was worth less than the word of Father Chesney to his superiors. And also worth less was the word of practically every journalist who has written about the bombing. And the word of locals. And all the rumours at the time. And the suspicions of politicians such as Ivan Cooper.

In fact, you are also wrong about the police. Although they didn't interview him, they did begin to investigate his involvement but the plug was pulled on it. So, again, a start was made but not a thorough investigation.

I stand by what I said: no proper attempt was made to prove his guilt or innocence by any authority in church or state, least of all by the Catholic Church in which this man was a priest.

What I found particularly sickening, William, is that Daly also interviewed him and accepted his denials, presumably also accepting his ‘innocent’ taximan yarn, and now blames the police because he wasn’t arrested and questioned. Isn’t that a tacit admission that his own ‘investigation’ was worthless?

Why didn’t Farren, Daly and co. suspend Chesney, pending further inquiries? Surely allegations of mass murder are serious enough to warrant at least a SUSPENSION???

We're back to the same old discussion. I remember several years ago at this stage pointing out that bishops have no skills in criminal investigation, no power to compel, no forensic science labs. The notion that the Church should have been able to do something which the State refused to do in this case is ludicrous. Presumably if he was in the IRA and was a murderer telling a few lies was no bother to him.

The responsibility for this one is very much with the RUC and the British Government.

The debate on Sunday was couched within a description of the terrorist framework of 1972 and seemed to me to be used as probable material to justify the evasion of the normal process of justice. There was much hypothetical conjecture on what several key players could have or may not have said or done. I feel that this type of debate could be painful to the victims who only know the clear fact that they or their relatives and friends were attacked by a ruthless murder gang. All they want to know is as many facts as possible regarding their fate. On one occasion when listening to a moral discussion my thoughts turned to the story in Judges Chapter 11 where a man called Jeph-thah vowed that if God gave him the victory in battle he would offer to the Lord the first thing that came through his door as a burnt offering. He was terrified when his only daughter met him. This man although willing to carry it through with a daughter who consented placed the life of his child as less important than the fact that he had made a promise. I once heard a foremost evangelical minister say on this passage that a promise that should never have been made should never have been kept. It is not supported that the Lord would have placed less value on the life of the child more than a man's reckless stupid oath. It was man's oath and not one asked for by the Lord. Whatever, the reasons for some decisions by those in power, they have to ask themselves if as mere men they had a right to withhold justice from others.

MCC,

The responsibility for this one is very much with the RUC and the British Government

The point is that no criminal investigation was carried out or was requested to be carried out. The Government, RUC and Catholic church connived to block investigation and spirit Chesney away. I cannot see how or why this would have been done unless all three parties believed, at least at some level, the suspicions of the RUC and actively came up with the plan, executed the plan and maintained the silence.

The fact that people in the church asked questions and what the answers were is irrelevant as they still worked with the NIO and RUC as if some of the allegations might be true. If they believed he was innocent why would they have gone along with the plan.

Are you suggesting they spirited off what they believed to be an innocent priest.

Brian, the third paragraph of your post # 8 above contains some of the most astoundingly illiberal propositions I have ever had the misfortune to read. Are you seriously suggesting that we should have trial and conviction by state intelligence, by media, by gossip and rumour, by political suspicion? The ideas are as proposterous as they are monstrous.

It is clear that the state decided that the common good would not be served by a detailed investigation of Fr Chesney's alleged role in the bombing, a call, I feel, that was almost certainly correct. They asked the church to cooperate by moving the troublesome priest and the chuch aquiesced in their request. In the climate of rumour then subsisting a suspension would have been quite counter-productive. The action of both church and state appears to have been admirably pragmatic and I rather think this society owes all involved a major thank-you for their good sense.

The decision by the Secretary of State and the RUC Chief Constable
in 1972 not to arrest Fr.Chesney on suspicion of involvement in
the Claudy bombings, and their request to the Cardinal that
Chesney be removed from UK jurisdiction, appear to have been made
to avert a deterioration of the already tense situation by further
alienating Catholics on the one hand and making Catholic priests
and churches targets for Loyalist paramilitaries on the other. The
situation was perilously close to civil war. Their decision was
presumably made in good faith for the greater good of the many
while the few, namely the Claudy families, would be denied
justice, as was Fr. Chesney, innocent or guilty. This was a
pragmatic decision.

As the situation had religious connotations one might look to the
New Testament for inspiration. In John 11:50 we find the classic
pragmatic decision made in similar circumstances. The high priest
Caiaphas declares "It is better for one man (Jesus) to die for the
people than for the whole nation to be destroyed". He is referring
to the catastrophic consequences for the Jewish states if Jesus
had become, willingly or unwillingly, a messianic focus for an
uprising against Roman domination. As things transpired, there was
an uprising which began thirty three years later with catastrophic
consequences. Caiaphas' pragmatism merely averted the crisis
temporarily. (Did Paul's message to the Jewish diaspora about a
resurrected messianic christ figure contribute to the uprising?)

Had that pragmatic decision not been made there would have been no
Crucifixion; no New Testament Resurrection story; no Christian
religion; no subsequent Reformation; no Protestants and no
Catholics; no partition of Ireland on a religious head count; no
Protestant dominated, sectarian, discriminatory, anti-Catholic
Northern Ireland statelet; no Civil Rights Movement; no Republican
and Loyalist paramilitaries; no Claudy bombings; no Fr.Chesney; no
Secretary of State; no RUC Chief Constable; no Cardinal; no
pragmatic decision in 1972.

"The sins of the fathers (have been well and truly) visited upon
the children unto the (Nth) generation".

What might be the further consequences of that original pragmatic
decision made in 33 CE and the consequential one made in 1972 CE ?

The dreaded civil war may have been averted in 1972. Might it yet
happen?

The New Testament story (as commonly understood) did not averted
the negative consequences, to date, of that story. Was the 1972 pragmatic
decision a more positive consequence of, and response to, the
(commonly understood) New Testament story? Has the story come full
circle? Can we start again from here?

Dennis Golden 29 August 2010

Parrhasios,

I agree with what you say about this case, my only issue is around the candour of the current church leadership who seem to be intent on squirming around trying to appear noble, aloof and disconnected from these events.

All three parties were involved, all colluded and all knew exactly why. In the context of the situation in NI at the time I think the decisions were made in good faith and in a belief of the common good and even in hindsight were brave, if not exactly righteous and from afar probably for the best.

I think if the churches hierarchy had not immediately gone into instant denial, deflection, obfuscation, martyrdom and advanced hand wringing the moment the report was published and instead simply said that yes it happened and all concerned made the decision to save further bloodshed then we would be having a moral discussion about the ethics of a decision made in war not about the current day honesty and integrity of the catholic church (again).