Some quarters of the media have been throwing around the word 'cover-up' to describe the Church's actions regarding the alleged involvement of a priest in a 1972 bombing. However, as Michael Kelly's latest blog post shows, such mud-slinging is gravely misleading.
The report itself shows that the RUC were - for whatever reason - unwilling to investigate Fr Chesney fully. There's no evidence that this unwillingness to investigate came due to pressure from Church quarters and, indeed, it seems as though the whole situation was sprung on Cardinal Conway who was left in an awkward spot. This priest was suspected of involvement in a bombing and the Church co-operated fully with the civil authorities. Formal and informal questioning of Fr Chesney by other clergy turned up nothing but a denial and the police were unwilling to investigate further. The Cardinal was hardly in a position to dictate how the RUC investigate a terrorist crime and nor does it seem that he was in a position to carry out any kind of disciplinary action within the Church based on the evidence to hand. Going public with the suspicion would have served no good and would probably have led to priests being targeted by loyalist terrorist.
I'm sure some journalists get a kick out of putting an anti-Church spin on what happened, but the only accurate description of what happened here is Church co-operates with law enforcement authorities.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment