Fiona O'Malley (Dún Laoghaire, Progressive Democrats)

The Ferns Report teaches us much. It is essentially a damning chronicle of the appalling abuses of the most depraved kind inflicted on young children by priests who held positions of trust and authority in communities. It chronicles the wholly inadequate and thoroughly reprehensible response by the church to abuses when it was informed of them. It highlights the inner workings of the church and how it felt itself above or separate from the laws of the State. It also points to the collusion on the part of the State authorities that allowed this misapprehension develop; that the church was above reproach.

The State's failure to pursue priests for sex crimes against children over many years is truly shameful. It is evidence of the all too cosy relationship that has existed between the church and the State. I believe this relationship persists to this day, and if we are to act on the lessons from the Ferns Report it is a relationship which must be dismantled thoroughly.

Preservation and protection of the church was the primary concern of the hierarchy when the abuses became apparent. For an association or institution which purports to offer moral and spiritual guidance, the response of the church to the allegations of sexual abuse against members of its community was wholly morally bankrupt. It promoted and transferred paedophile priests, permitting them to continue their vile practice unchecked and it sidelined honourable priests who sought to have the matter addressed. Many honourable members of the church are as appalled as the general public by the tolerance on the part of the hierarchy or the institution of the church of the perpetrators of such evil sex crimes. These are people who are in danger of being isolated further from communities in which they have made a positive contribution because of a tendency of tarring all with the same brush. The hierarchy has let these honourable members down badly by its failure to bring errant members to justice.

Had the same efficiency with which Bishop Comiskey and others sought insurance to indemnify themselves against claims of sexual abuse in 1989 been applied to rooting out the cancer which was left to fester within the clergy, many children would not have suffered the pain and trauma of violation by people whom their parents and community revered. This is what is so reprehensible. Back then children were not believed, given the status of the priest in the community.

The Ferns Report is interesting also on the question of Canon Law versus State civil and criminal law and how the church places itself somewhat outside or above the laws which govern our nation. The early part of the report documents how the hierarchy grappled with the tensions between these sets of rules to which they were bound. The first code of Canon Law dealt with, amongst other things, how priests who abused children were to be treated. The report noted, "a high degree of secrecy was imposed on all church officials involved in such cases. The penalty for breach of this secrecy was automatic excommunication...". This is totally at odds with our criminal code. The conduct of the hierarchy in dealing with sex abuse allegations demonstrates that its loyalty was first and foremost to its own code of Canon Law. The laws of the State came a poor second and the consequence was the appalling abuse of innocent children.

The report, if it were needed, should demonstrate to the Catholic Church or any church or organisation that its own code of conduct is subject to national law and it is by those standards alone that one's conduct will be judged. Only time will tell whether this report represents a crossing the Rubicon. Can we confidently claim that the horror and pain inflicted by priests will never happen again? If we are to make such a bold claim our response to this report will make all the difference. This response will require many changes. Chief among them is the level of influence the church still enjoys in our schools. The Ferns Report notes the easy access depraved priests had to a steady supply of children through schools.

Mary Raftery, who has done invaluable service to Irish society by her persistence in exposing institutional abuses in Ireland, has raised this issue recently in The Irish Times. She has highlighted that more than 95% of national schools are directly managed by the Catholic Church. Often priests will control the boards of management. Fr. Seán Fortune chaired such a board while he conducted his sex crimes. Can we in all faith continue to leave the care of children in the education system in the hands of an institution which has shown itself to be wholly inadequate in its response to the safety of children when abuse was identified?

Equally, we have seen recent scandalous attempts by the Catholic Church to interfere with clinical trials for cancer patents in the Mater and St. Vincent's hospitals. There is the ongoing objection of CURA volunteers to disseminating the Positive Options leaflet on behalf of the Crisis Pregnancy Agency, which is a State agency. In a referendum the people indicated they wanted information on all options to be disseminated. This leaflet documents all options facing a woman with a crisis pregnancy. This objection continues despite an agreement entered into by the bishops on behalf of CURA to do so. The agreement is worth more than €650,000 to CURA. These instances point to an all too powerful influence on our society by the Catholic Church. Such an influence has no place in a republic.

A survey conducted last year by the Department of Education and Science, the most comprehensive survey of the Irish people's views on education matters since 1960, backs up this opinion. The majority agreed with the proposition that schools should not be denominational, although they should provide for some religious instruction. It is time we as politicians for a pluralist republic provided this option for our citizens.

I commend the work Mr. Justice Murphy, Dr. Helen Buckley and Dr. Laraine Joyce have done on our behalf. They operated under particularly difficult circumstances in that it was not a sworn inquiry. Despite its stomach-turning contents it represents something of a catharsis in the State's role and responsibilities and those of the church in finally confronting clerical sexual abuse. I hope the church will get the message clearly that it no longer has an ally in the State if it is seeking to cover up sex crimes.

See this speech in context