Dear Editor,
I agree with the sentiments expressed by Mr Fuller in his recent letter (Wednesday 23 December). I echo his horror at the revelations of the Murphy Report and I, too, fully support calls for those who acted inappropriately with regard to cases of sexual abuse to take responsibility.

However, I do not support calls for the resignation of Bishop Drennan. I wish to add the following points to what Mr Fuller has already said:

We know what the report says about how Bishop Drennan handled the case involving Fr Guido. He complied with the 1996 guidelines. The Advisory Panel on Child Protection made recommendations, which were followed. Overall, Judge Murphy found that the case was handled correctly. However, I do not think it is fair to take this case in isolation, although it was the only one examined by the Commission, which Bishop Drennan dealt with. To examine the wider situation as it was following the 1996 guidelines, reveals that Bishop Drennan - who was appointed as an auxiliary bishop in 1997 - was most certainly working in a different situation to his brother bishops who had been appointed pre-1996.

Archbishop Connell set up an advisory panel, which first met in April 1996. This panel had equal numbers of men and women. Three members were clerics; the laypersons had backgrounds in psychiatry, social work, law and business (7.22). The main guiding principle of the panel's recommendations was the safety and welfare of children (7.25). This is hardly surprising, especially given that the majority of lay panel members were themselves parents (7.22). This panel produced recommendations relating to 27 of the cases examined by the Commission (7.23).

The Commission agreed with evidence given by Cardinal Connell that, from 1996 onwards, every case which came before him was sent to the advisory panel for consideration. Furthermore, it supports the Cardinal's declaration that, in respect of the cases examined by it, he accepted and implemented every recommendation (7.29). Granted, the 1996 guidelines were not flawless, but it is clear that Bishop Drennan was serving in the Archdiocese at a time when serious attempts were being made to deal with the issue of abuse.