Dáil debates

Friday, 12 June 2009

Ryan Report on the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse: Motion (Resumed)

 

11:00 am

Photo of Martin ManserghMartin Mansergh (Tipperary South, Fianna Fail)

What is documented in the Ryan report was a catastrophe, above all for the inmates of industrial schools and reformatories but also for the religious orders concerned, church, State and society. Systematic cruelty leaving lifelong scars, aggravated in some cases by appalling paedophile abuse, took place. Redress by way of apology, financial compensation or other forms of help and counselling or memorial, though all these are necessary, are bound to be pathetically inadequate.

We should be careful to describe what happened accurately. I deprecate Nazi death camp analogies or even Soviet gulag ones where large numbers were executed or perished. Nevertheless, there were a number of unexplained deaths in the Irish situation. How could these things happen in a country both Christian and that had recently won its freedom? Where was the gospel of "suffer the little children" or the proclamation's ideal of cherishing the children of the nation equally? What happened to the spirit of Pearse's indictment of teaching methods under British rule which he called the "murder machine"? How could these things happen and how could denial, cover up and suppression last for so long?

Michael O'Brien, even if mayor of Clonmel, confessed that these things could not be talked about unless one wished to be treated as a social outcast and ridiculed and I believe him. Intellectual and religious minorities, with rare courageous exceptions, kept their heads down. It has often been said that the church is not a democracy but this is perhaps also an exemplification of Lord Acton's dictum that absolute power corrupts absolutely. It was a lack of accountability that allowed this to happen and fester for so long.

Unfortunately, Christianity for much of its history has been punitive and repressive and more old than new testament in its severity. Very different to what we are familiar with today, at that time those in religious orders did not value the worth of every individual or regard everyone as God's creatures or have a special care of the marginalised or give people the affection and love that they need. The sexual abuse is incomprehensible in the terms of vocation and religious rules. One cannot but contrast the severity of punishment for things like bed-wetting with the mild reproof and sidelining of people who were caught or known to be involved in very serious acts of sexual abuse, even crimes. The tragedy for the church has been compounded through the mishandling of these cases until relatively recently though we should acknowledge that the spirit and ethos today is almost wholly different.

The compensation deal negotiated in 2002 was at best a first step but inadequate today. Assets not worth as much as they were a couple of years ago are still very substantial. Moral responsibility requires in this as in many other cases going much further than minimal legal obligation. The role of the churches in teaching and caring institutions is much attenuated and more residual than in the past. Like in situations of disaster that have befallen Christianity in other times, many people remain attached to their religion and church and are conscious of the much good that was done in other spheres and that can still be done.

This is also a failure of State and society. The country was poor and the social conditions for the majority of people 50 years ago were bad, even very bad. There is less documentation about the level of abuse outside of institutions but it undoubtedly occurred. State and society were content to abdicate their responsibilities and did not really want to know about sharp divergences from the ideal society or what was going on behind closed doors. Concerns were expressed privately, including by Archbishop McQuaid, and some actions taken but only very occasionally publically and then swept under the carpet.

I remember being told by a senior member of my party - not the leader - as late as the mid 1980s that two institutions one should never criticise were the church and the Garda. A strong authoritarian ethos discouraged questioning about allegations seen as improbable, implausible and defamatory and much of the evidence was mislaid or destroyed. As a sometime historian I regard the deliberate destruction of papers as an abomination that should not be tolerated no matter what the legal pretexts, even if they have to be held back. Any whistleblowing legislation that is introduced should contain a clause attaching severe penalties to the unauthorised destruction of documents other than of the most routine character.

It is interesting reading back on the history that the approach of EEC membership in the late 1960s and early 1970s led to the winding up of many of these institutions; it underlines, which is still relevant today, the benefits of international norms that do not, of course, have to be accepted uncritically. Most countries have events, periods or episodes of which they are rightly deeply ashamed. Institutional abuse was not confined to this country but our slowness in reacting appropriately to it and recognising that it was taking place is our shame. We must be extremely vigilant to ensure we allow nothing equivalent to develop.

Reading this report one is tempted to say, with Kant, that out of the crooked timber of humanity, nothing straight can be made but having fallen down we must pick ourselves up again or, as Christ said, rise, take up thy bed and walk. A combination of the two would be as the philosopher Gramsci said, "Pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will".

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.