Charles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)

Sadly, for most of the past 90 years, we have lived in a de facto theocracy in which elected public representatives and senior public servants sought to enforce the agenda of the main church with secondary regard for the people of this republic. Deference and subservience to church authority appeared to be the order of the day, in spite of the fact that our Constitution purported to vest sovereignty in the people alone.

The Murphy report confirms that State authorities, including the Garda, facilitated the cover-up of child abuse by members of the clergy by failing to fulfil their responsibility to ensure that the law was applied equally to all. The report states senior members of the Garda regarded priests as outside their remit, with some members reporting complaints to the archdiocese instead of investigating them in any coherent and proper way. It reveals that senior gardaí had inappropriate dealings with bishops, breached their duties and allowed one priest suspected of sexual abuse to leave the country without bringing criminal charges. The report infers that there was one law for the clergy and another for the people. The inference of the perversion of the course of justice is clear.

What happens next in our courts, as legislators, will confirm whether this culture has truly changed in practice or whether public servants, be they politicians, civil servants or public servants such as gardaí, will continue to allow their personal religious beliefs to supersede law of the land, with devastating consequences.

This week, the Garda Commissioner announced he has ordered an investigation into the findings of the Murphy report. It is vital that this investigation be more than just a paper exercise. We need to see prosecutions. If it takes an Act of the Oireachtas to overcome difficulties impeding prosecutions, we must enact it.

The very existence of the Murphy report affirms that we have made some progress in putting the good of the people ahead of the good of the institution of the Catholic church; however, there is no shortage of evidence that an unbalanced church-State relationship persists in this jurisdiction. A clear example of the inappropriate championing of church interests by the State is the indemnity deal agreed by the then Minister for Education and Science, the Secretary General of his Department and representatives of the religious orders regarding child sexual abuse and the setting up of the redress board.

The indemnity deal is a glaring example, but more subtle examples exist. It has emerged that there may be difficulties in prosecuting senior clerics and gardaí for their involvement in the cover-up of child sex abuse in the Dublin archdiocese. Legal experts have pointed to the failure of a previous Garda investigation to mount a case against church officials for failing to report serious crime.

The investigation prompted by the 2002 "Prime Time" documentary on clerical child sex abuse sought evidence to support charges of misprision of a felony. Ms Justice Murphy states in her report "In all the circumstances, it is considered by the commission that the misprision of felony investigations were carried out more for the sake of completeness than from any substantial belief that there would ever be such a prosecution".

She further notes that difficulties have arisen due to the abolition of the distinction between a felony and a misdemeanour in 1997. The comments of Ms Justice Murphy suggest that the previous Garda investigation was little more than an exercise in paper writing, perhaps borne out of a desire to soothe an enraged public rather than bring criminals to justice.

There is a gap in the statute book which impedes the criminal prosecution of State officials and clergy who covered up child abuse which should be addressed. We have heard references to amending the 1998 Offences Against the State Act which should happen as a prerequisite to dealing with the broader issues involved. As a House, we were able to change the statute of limitations to facilitate prosecutions for child abuse. Surely there is something we can do now to deliver justice to victims of child sex abuse.

It is abundantly clear that many politicians and senior public servants continue to have blind obedience to the Catholic Church with their fidelity to the State coming a poor second. What is also clear is the contempt in which the Church holds secular State authorities.

We now know that the Murphy commission wrote to the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 2006 seeking information on reports of clerical sex abuse sent to it by the Dublin archdiocese over the relevant 30-year period. It also sought information on the document Crimen Sollicitationis which deals with clerical sex abuse. It did not receive a reply. Instead, the Vatican contacted the Department of Foreign Affairs complaining that the commission had not used appropriate diplomatic channels.

A year later the commission wrote to the papal nuncio in Dublin requesting that he forward all relevant documents that had not been or were not produced by Archbishop Martin. The papal nuncio was also asked to confirm if he was in possession of relevant documents. He simply ignored the Commission and continued to ignore it when earlier this year it sent him extracts for its draft document which referred to him and his office. Dr. Leanza, the current papal nuncio, has cited diplomatic protocol as the reason he and the Vatican authorities ignored a State appointed commission headed by a judge of this jurisdiction. This contemptuous response can only be taken to be a tangible example of the contempt in which the Vatican continues to hold the secular authorities of this State.

It is worth noting that in June 2001 Pope Benedict, the then Cardinal Ratzinger, wrote to every diocesan bishop instructing them to refer complaints of clerical child sex abuse to Rome in the first instance so that the Vatican could decide how such complaints would be dealt with. Therefore, we know that the present pope is a keen advocate, or was at the time, a keen advocate of the view that Vatican authority is superior to State authority in a country like Ireland where State law takes precedence.

Since the publication of the Murphy report we have heard apologies from senior clergy in Ireland but what action have we seen? We have been warned, as recently as today, not to seek "a head on a plate". In effect, that is another way of asking for an exemption from accountability. The dialogue may have changed in Ireland but has the culture changed?

There is little proof that the Catholic Church truly believes that civil law is superior to canon law and while senior figures such as politicians and public servants continue to be members of secret Catholic organisations, the State will always come second best and civil law will always be undermined. What is the legacy of putting Vatican interests ahead of the interests of the people of Ireland? We know it is abuse and oppression. The Murphy report says it all.

As an elected public representative, it does not matter one whit to me which bishops resign, and where and when it happens. That is a matter for them and the church. However, there are civil consequences which are important. Where bishops and priests are church patrons of hospitals and schools, and are members of their boards, they should be subject to civil consequences for their actions. It is time to shake off the legacy of subservience. It is time for the State to assert itself. It is now abundantly clear that morality is not merely a religious concept. Our State laws, in effect, are moral. In theory they are superior to canon law and the wishes of the senior clergy, but we must ensure at all times that they are also superior in practice.

I compliment Ms Justice Murphy and the commission. However, the best tribute we can give to the judge and her team is to act on the report to ensure there will not be a repetition of what is contained in the 700 pages of the Murphy commission report.

See this speech in context