Commission Challenges Bishop's Claims He Was Unaware of Priest's Child Abuse

By Melissa Davey
The Guardian
December 10, 2015

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/dec/11/commission-challenges-bishops-claims-he-was-unaware-of-priests-child-abuse

Justice Peter McClellan, centre, at a royal commission into institutional responses to child sexual abuse’s public hearing. Photograph: Royal commission

The chair of a royal commission has rigorously challenged claims by the auxiliary bishop of Brisbane, Brian Finnegan, that he was not aware that a now notorious paedophile priest he had oversight of was suspected of abusing children.

Finnegan was secretary to the bishop of the Ballarat diocese, Ronald Mulkearns, between 1979 and 1985, a period during which Gerald Ridsdale was abusing children in his role as a priest at parishes within the diocese.

Finnegan repeatedly told the commission he had no idea of concerns about Ridsdale abusing children while working for the diocese, despite receiving a telephone call from a mother who told him she was concerned for the safety of her eldest son following his interactions with Ridsdale at a presbytery.

During the phone call, the mother told Finnegan she wanted a private meeting with Mulkearns to discuss her concerns. According to notes of that conversation tendered to the royal commission into institutional responses to child sexual abuse, Finnegan told the mother there was no need for concern, and there had been no reports of improper behaviour by Ridsdale.

Finnegan also did not help the mother to make an appointment with Mulkearns, and told the commission he doubted he would have informed Mulkearns of the conversation. He also said he did not take the complaint to mean there were concerns about Ridsdale abusing the boy.

Justice Peter McClellan, one of the chairs of the commission, replied: “You’re in a responsible position in the church. If someone comes to you and says they are concerned about the safety of their child, does that not cause you the greatest alarm?”

Finnegan replied; “On reflection, it should have, but at the time I didn’t tweak to it or whatever”.

McClellan pressed Finnegan on why he would not have helped the mother to arrange an appointment with Mulkearns.

“I thought if they were that keen to see the bishop, they would follow up ASAP,” Finnegan replied.

Special counsel Angus Stewart put it to Finnegan that as Mulkearns’s “gatekeeper”, the mother had done the right thing by attempting to book an appointment through him, but had got nowhere. The commission also heard that Ridsdale turned up to the mother’s home several hours after she made the phone call to Finnegan, demanding to speak to her son and upset that a complaint had been made.

Finnegan said he did not recall telling Ridsdale that a complaint had been made about him, and that he was unsure how he found out.

Eighteen months later, there was a second incident involving Ridsdale touching her son and the child of another family, the commission heard. She and the parents of the other child immediately scheduled a meeting with Mulkearns.

Finnegan said this proved his point that the mother would have been able to get an appointment with Mulkearns without his help.

“Yes, 18 months later, after who knows how much suffering and harm had been caused by Ridsdale in the meantime,” Stewart replied. “Do you not see that?”

Notes made after the meeting with Mulkearns by the parents described the meeting as “surreal”.

“Mulkearns did not respond, he just sat there and stared at us,” the notes said.

“The whole episode was quite surreal. Mulkearns seemed totally devoid of any emotion.”

Mulkearns will not be giving evidence to the commission, as he is unwell and in palliative care.

In documents revealed by the commission, Finnigan once described the Mortlake parish where Ridsdale worked as priest in 1981 and 1982 as “a real trouble spot” where there was “drama” around “kids in classes”.

“The impression one gets is you were told that many children were being abused,” McClellan said.

Finnegan replied: “I have no recollection of anybody telling me that”.

However, after further pressing from McClellan, which culminated in McClellan putting to him that “the information that you had was many children were abused,” Finnegan replied; “That’s the information I had”.

“Whether it was true or not is another question,” Finnegan said.

The hearings continue.