There was a time when Planet Ireland orbited its own smug, self-satisfied star, held on course by a mysterious force known as certainty. That was an era when Irish missionaries roamed darkest Africa, ridding the natives of their superstitions and giving them new ones. It was a time when children on Planet Ireland were locked up in prisons run by brutal, ignorant rapists, when priests dictated to legislators what laws they might pass regulating private sexual behaviour of grown adults. It was an era when priests and bishops could bring down an entire government with a single word, and when Prime Ministers of our little planetoid were happy to grovel on their knees before a Prince of the Church.
Nobody exemplifies this power more than John Charles McQuaid, Archbishop of Dublin from 1940 to 1972. While still president of Blackrock College, McQuaid played a huge part in drafting the 1937 constitution in much the same way as an Iranian cleric might today. When Ayatollah McQuaid, clicked his fingers government ministers jumped.
But what's this? According to the Irish Times, the HSE failed to pass two sex-abuse complaints against McQuaid to the Murphy commission, which was therefore unable to investigate the allegations.
The Murphy commission accepted that the failure was due to human error, but it seems extraordinary that the HSE would not grasp the explosive significance of the documents it had in its possession.
According to the journalist, Patsy McGarry, McQuaid was fond of a tipple and often dropped into a pub near his residence for a quick nip to steady his nerves. On one such occasion, according to McGarry, the landlord's child came running down the stairs, crying and saying that McQuaid had done something to him. The Archbishop was immediately ejected from the premises.
A Prince of the Church
Nothing would surprise me about the institution McQuaid represented. In 1960, according to the commission report, McQuaid was contacted by Garda Commissioner Costigan about obscene photographs of young girls in Crumlin children's hospital, taken by one of his priests, Paul McGennis when he was chaplain there. Costigan had been contacted by Scotland Yard after a security officer at a British film-processing laboratory intercepted the film and informed the police. However, instead of investigating a crime, Costigan chose to abdicate his responsibility and pass the matter to McQuaid. The archbishop did nothing, and McGennis went on to abuse children for a further forty years. It says much about the power wielded by these men that not even the Garda Commissioner had the courage to stand up to them.
Perhaps now we understand more clearly why McQuaid, a notoriously severe man, was so lenient with a child abuser.
Perhaps they shared more in common than just a dog collar.
Planet Ireland's orbit has been waning for some time. I wonder if the McQuaid story will be the one that finally cuts the gravitational umbilical cord and sends our little planetoid spinning into the void until captured by a different star?
_________________
Health warning: unfortunately, the Wikipedia article on McQuaid is contaminated by the involvement of an active apologist for clerical abusers, who claims to have created most of it. It's not a reliable source.
pp. 284-285 of John Cooney's biography contain allegations he was a paedophile
Yes. I think that's what the 1999 reference is about.
Quote : "According to the journalist, Patsy McGarry, McQuaid was fond of a tipple and often dropped into a pub near his residence for a quick nip to steady his nerves. On one such occasion, according to McGarry, the landlord’s child came running down the stairs, crying and saying that McQuaid had done something to him. The Archbishop was immediately ejected from the premises."
I was unable to find this particular story in Patsy McGarry's piece in the Irish Times. Do you have a link to same?
The reason you can't find same in the Irish Times is because he said same on radio. If you like, I'll try and find a link to same.
" I wonder if the McQuaid story will be the one that finally cuts the gravitational umbilical cord". Maybe Bock.
McGarry certainly doesn't appear to be any apologist for the Catholic Church.
How did you find him on the radio?
I pressed the ON button.
haha.
He seems like an ok journalist.
Haven't heard him on the airwaves though.
Strange goings on there. Seems to me like a whole paedophile ring was in operation, lead from the top.
Ok.I heard him on the radio being interviewed about this issue but must have missed the part about His Grace being in the pub.
The late Noel Browne TD claimed that somebody met him at a funeral and told him in confidence that McQuaid had pedophile tendencies. Browne noted this verbal allegation in his biography or somewhere else. Browne's biographer, Prof. John Horgan, notes the allegation but does not pursue the matter as there was no corrobrorating evidence available.
This is one of the most shared articles in Ireland at the moment through Twitter and Facebook according to Newswhip.com
What article?
As much as I'm not fond of McQuaid, these stories seem suspect. McQuaid going down to a local pub for a pint? McQuaid actually being ejected from said pub after an altercation? The alleged abuse is the most believable part of the entire story; the rest seems entirely fantastical.
Noel Browne is also not a very independent commentator when it comes to McQuaid.
As I'm a great believer in rot starting at the top, I would find it credible that McQuaid may have been an abuser. But the story's above don't seem credible to me and I don't agree with making accusations or insinuations of this type without very solid evidence.
Since the Murphy commission was deprived by the HSE of the opportunity to examine the files, we may not find out, but I understand that at least one of the complainants is taking a civil case.
Nobody disputes that McQuaid routinely went to the pub and was given a private room so that he wouldn't have to mix with hoi polloi. That would certainly fit in with the report of the child being abused. The ejection might well have taken the form of a request not to return.
The wife of the Church of Ireland Bishop, Dr. G.O. Simms (an authority on the Book of Kells) knew McQuaid socially and was quoted somewhere several years after McQuaid's death as saying that McQuaid had shown 'an unhealthy interest' in young children. I remember seeing a letter in the Irish Times after this remark came to public attention by a man whose father had worked as a gardener at McQuaid's official residence in Drumcondra. The IT letter writer asserted that he had sometimes met McQuaid informally in the residence and the surrounding grounds and never had McQuaid made improper advances.
Until harder facts become known maybe it is best to assume that nothing has been proved.
Mercy Simms' comment is in Cooney's biography of McQuaid
The HSE has a lot to answer for. This latest story, and what was the reason behind trying to stop the 13 year old child traveling to England.
Why would someone in the HSE go to the High court at all?
were the McQuaid files the only ones not to be passed on?
A person might think there is a very close connection between someone at the top of the HSE and the church.
I don't know anything about all this, but on the face of it I find this fairly incredulous. The archbishop of Dublin frequenting a local pub seems very odd to me. Again I don't know anything about it, but I am very skeptical of senior clergy descending down from their burgundy towers for a pint when they presumably had fodders of drink on hand in their residences anyway.
I believe that the catholic church should be declared a proscribed organisation.
McQuaid was obsessed with sex and was well known to ask very personal questions both of his priests and penitents.In plain language,he was a dirty old fucker.
Having had Mc Quaids hand touch my head in Meath Street chapel in 1954 as I was being "reluctantly confirmed" in the catholic church, leaves me with the thought that , that touch led to my present baldness.!! Or maybe it was the GOOD FOOD we enjoyed in Artane.?
Whoever wrote the article on Archbishop John Charles McQuaid is a foul liar. I had an aquaintence of short duration with the man and can tell you with certainty that he was not a paediophile.
@ Sojourner. An acquaintance of short duration? How long is a piece of string? It is very easy for someone to call an individual a paedophile without any concrete proof and I would abhor any such comments. But the thread poses the question 'Was Archbishop John McQuaid a Paedophile? Assuming that you know with certainty that he was not a paedophile appears to indicate that you have solid proof that this is the case. Would you like to share the proof of this certainty with us?
Very good, Sojourner. During your short acquaintance with McQuaid, what methods did you use to establish that he was not a paedophile? This could be crucial in clearing his name.
I read a piece about Mcquaid many years ago,though i forgot what publication it was,and it suggested the pedo thing, that his palace was located very near a childrens school, and that he had a large telescope on an upper floor of the building pointed at the said school.
Anyone know anything about this ?
One of the things that was odd about McQuaid was the fact that he kept a very substantial residence in Killiney (a huge house in its own grounds, for one man), a long way from his 'official' residence in Drumcondra. I haven't read any account that explains why he did this, maybe it's in the Cooney book? And perhaps his 'local' was in Killiney, rather than Drumcondra?
I'm fairly sure the incident is alleged to have happened in Drumcondra.
Who owned the house in Killiney?
He did. Apparently the 7-bedroom Victorian mansion on four acres was a gift from his family in, I think, 1945, when he became Archbishop of Dublin. It's referred to as his 'private' residence but I'm not aware that this was standard procedure before or after his incumbency.
Useful to see the conveyancy documents on that, both at the time he came into posession and on its disposal after his death.
Nice going for a small-town GP to buy a pad like that.
Well, well, well !! I post a comment after the site appears to have been neglected for comment for about six weeks and suddenly following my little remark, (which I was half expecting to be erased) there are seven responses !! I hope to say something to each comment as soon as I can but I would just like to take a little time to check details first as I want to present as informed. Maybe a day or two.
Sojourner — You'll find that there are dozens comments every day. Have a look around the site. You'll enjoy it.
Replying to Long John Silver (comment 23) first: My aquantence with the Archbishop was long enough to confirm for me what I am saying. However, I know that anything would never be long enough for you to even make you think, let alone convince you. Lets just say that the string is long enough. The evidence that I possess is testimony and it is at least as objective and as worthy of consideration as any accussation leveled aganst him. My advice now is not to wet the powder before the time and not to waste the element of suprise on an open public forum.
Replying to Bock (comments 24 and 27) The methods that I used to establish the integrity of the Archbishop were none at all ! I was not investigating him for anything and there was nothing to suggest anything lewd or improper about the man. Everything that I remember about him indicated the opposite.
Comment 27: I am unsure which incident you refer to here — please clarify and I will reply. Is it the story in Dr. Noel Browne's essay "A Virgin Ireland" of "John the Bishop's" meeting with a publican's son, quoted by John Cooney?
Just a bye-the-way reply to Bock for comment 31: The last comment before mine on this subject matter, number 21, was posted on 31 Dec 2011 — a gap of about 6 weeks, I am not really interested in the rest of the site. All I am interested in is defending the reputation of John Charles McQuaid.
That tends to happen Sojourner. Threads get reactivated after being dormant when further comments have been added.
Ah, so what?
Might have been best to let sleeping dogs lie considering your allegiances, as you really haven't done anything to warrant dismissing any allegations, with your statement that you were of "aquaintence of short duration with the man".
Again.. so what?
Reply for bmul — no 25 —– on behalf of Sojourner ———Just commenting on a query about JC McQuaid's legendary telescope. My information on the technical attributes of the instrument are that it seems to be a refractor, popular at the time with amatur astronomers. Astronomical refracting telescopes actually show the image upside down making them unsuitable for terresterial viewing. The reason for this is that when viewing heavenly bodies, light is at a premium so the rectifying lens between the proximal lens and the distal lens is removed to enable a better collection of light. Upside down does not matter when looking at the stars —- there is no "right way up" out there. So, if JC McQ was using the telescope for land viewing he must have liked looking at things upside down.
Now furthur, I understand that if the telescope was correctly mounted for astronomy by astronomer Frank O'Connor then it will not have much capacity to view downwards below the horozontal. Seems to me a very unsuitable device for a voyeur to be using!
I am aware of such telescopes,clearly you have a great interest in the "heavens" but perhaps McQuade was wealthy enough to have more than one telescope [smile]
Perhaps someone might confirm or deny that the palace, was located in proximity to a school ??
It does seem clear he had an unhealthy interest in children [I was at the sharp end of the catholic church as a kid with the "christian" "brothers",]
Only in the early 70s,when Garret the good was forming a piece of social legestation [my spelling aint so good after sexton street] and the said McQuaid tried to interfere, that garret told him to keep to his religion, and he would keep to his policits, I only remember the catholic church in the 50s as a vile,sadastic, cruel instutition, and had fractured fingers to prove it.power comes from the top of the catholic church, and seeps its way throughout the instution, as it has up to this day and up to the time I left the church, at the ripe old age of 12 years of age ,my life has been all the better for it,
I count a few catholic priests as friends, good decent honest men,I feel so sorry for them, trying to minister to their flock,with that big dark cloud over their heads permantly,
iap337 — How did you establish that McQuaid's telescope was an astronomical one? My understanding is that the astronomer Frederick O'Connor (not Frank), who built the telescope, was the man who accused McQuaid of using the instrument for voyeurism.
Do you think Mr O'Connor didn't understand the workings of his own telescope?
Sojourner — So you just made it up, is that correct?
No, I am just a good judge of character and I got to know him enough to assess him. A more objective assessment than Cooney's who never met him at all.
Good. We'll take your opinion for what it's worth, then. An opinion.
Replying to bmul again, this time about the school nearby: I believe that it has been established that there is a PARTIAL view from the deck of the observeratory to the school grounds but how much exposure is unstated. It would appear however, too restricted to be a realistic allegation. On the other suggestion by Cooney of spying on courting couples on Killiney beach, my information here is that there is no clear line of sight from the deck to the beach except for a section very near the water. If you feel up to it you could conduct your own investigation with a good pair of binoculars by checking the line of sight from the target area, reverse direction, to the observatory. (The owners of Ashurst House will not allow you to the deck to check from there). But remember this proves nothing in relation to voyersm.
Reply to Bock (Comment 40): No, Bock, it is not an opinion —- it is a judgement.
Since you won't provide the basis for your judgement, it's an opinion and nothing more.
Reply to FF1 (Comment 35) I think that you are right.
Hi Bock —– Sorry for the delay in getting back to you with your query about JC McQ's telescope. I cannot trace any record of its technical details at this time but given his high interest in astronomy which took on from his father, the instrument was almost certainly a refractor which was usually the choice of amaturs in those days. The record that Frank O'Connor,(opps! sorry! Fredrick!), built it does not nessessarly mean that he manufactured the tube itself —- it may have been purchased as a unit. Building a telescope essentially means that he outfitted the belltower as a telescope. Now if the fittings and mountings were correctly measured and fitted to locate positions on the celestial sphere taking into account the geographical co-ordinates of the belltower's exact place on the face of the Earth, then in short, the whole assembly would have been very unweildy and insuitable for the purpose that JC McQ is accussed of using it for. Viewing below 0 degrees, ( ie below the horizon), would not be facilitated. The allegation is plausable in a very far-feched sense but not to be entertained realistically.