Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)

Deputy Kenny asked about the Department's position on what happened. It is a matter of regret that the Holy See was not in a position to provide a substantive response to inquiries from the commission of investigation of the Dublin Archdiocese. It is important to be clear as to how and why this occurred.

The commission of investigation wrote to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in September 2006 seeking, inter alia, information on reports of child sexual abuse that had been passed on to the congregation by the Archdiocese of Dublin. The Holy See responded to that request by diplomatic note, sent by the Vatican Secretariat of State to the Embassy of Ireland to the Holy See in March 2007. This note made clear the view of the Vatican that, as the commission had been established under the authority of the Government through the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, such a communication should be routed through diplomatic channels and in accordance with international laws and customs. This diplomatic note was forwarded via the Department of Foreign Affairs to the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, which passed it to Judge Murphy of the commission. There does not appear to have been any further communication between the commission and the Holy See after that note was passed.

I understand, however, that the Holy See sought confirmation that the content of its note had been made known to the commission. That was confirmed to the Holy See and Judge Murphy was informed of the Vatican's interest in knowing the note had been conveyed to the commission. The Vatican made clear to the Embassy of Ireland to the Holy See that its concern to confirm that the note had been passed on was to avoid any impression that the correspondence from the commission had been ignored. It is not unreasonable to assume the Holy See was open to responding to a further approach through formal diplomatic channels. Neither is it unreasonable to assume that when the papal nuncio received correspondence from the commission in February 2007 and earlier this year, both the present and previous papal nuncios believed the matter was more properly addressed by the diplomatic note. It would not be normal practice for a diplomatic mission to release papers to a body in its country of accreditation without an approach through the host Government.

It is regrettable that the failure to acknowledge either letter has given rise to the impression the Holy See was refusing to co-operate with the commission. The commission notes in its report that, as a body independent of the Government, it did not consider it appropriate to use diplomatic channels and that it was a matter for the commission itself. The approach by the Holy See was consistent with international law, according to which dealings between states should be conducted via the diplomatic channel unless other arrangements are made by mutual consent.

The commission and the Holy See, it appears, acted in good faith in this matter, even if the best outcome was not achieved. It may be that an approach to the Holy See through appropriate diplomatic channels could assist in following up on the commission's report. This is a matter that the Government can consider, if appropriate, in the context of its response to the report.

See this speech in context