Kathleen O'Meara (Labour)

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this important matter. Like other speakers, I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Lenihan, to the House and commend him on his work on this issue.

Like Senator Feeney, I could not welcome the contents of the Ferns Report but I welcome that it has been published. Its publication and that of other such reports mark a watershed in the process through which we are currently going of, hopefully, eradicating and dealing with a history of sexual abuse of children. The Ferns Report is a limited report that only concerns itself with a certain part of the church in a certain part of the country. Like others, I would welcome a nationwide investigation. This issue is not limited by diocesan boundaries or a particular part of the church. The orders in Ferns or other parts of the country have not been looked at either.

The Ferns Report is welcome because like other reports it shows us that we are able and willing to look at something which for so long was hidden and allowed to continue behind closed doors. It occurred in a situation where those who tried to blow the whistle were punished for it and sidelined while those who carried out the abuse were protected and allowed to be on the altar on confirmation day. That is the kind of evidence which so hugely offended many of us who are members of the Catholic Church. As a practising member of the Catholic Church it is difficult to accept that a bishop, a leader of the church, would allow somebody accused of abuse to parade up the centre of a church and stand by him on the altar on confirmation day. The parents and children involved had no option but to leave the church. This offensive evidence is but one account of so many from this report.

It is a shocking report but we must get over our shock. It is important that it be spoken about and that it is in the public domain because this abuse occurred in a society where the power of the church was such that anybody who questioned that power by way of suggesting that a member of the clergy was acting in a questionable way was simply not allowed to be heard. That day must end and we are now at that point. However, let us not go so far the other way as to, effectively, throw out everything that is good about the church, as Senator Feeney and others have said.

We must closely examine the relationship between the church and civic society. We represent civic society in this House and many of us are members of the Catholic Church. That is absolutely fine. We should not come with a spirit of anger and vengeance against the church in an attempt to punish it, as is the case with some people. Some see it as an opportunity to, effectively, put the church in its place. I hope that does not happen because it would have negative consequences for society as a whole because, as Senator Feeney and others have said, it does not recognise the role of the church in communities in general where it is a force for good and an expression of who we are at many levels. This negative element of the church must be weeded out. As legislators, we must look at our role in making sure this happens.

While a conversation needs to take place within the church, of which I as a member of the church hope to be part, we must also examine the relationship between the church and civic society and look at how best that relationship can be expressed. The issue of accountability is important and how civic society ensures the church is held accountable in the civic and legal framework. It is not enough to say it is terrible and that we hope it never happens again. The fact that the matter is out in the open is not enough to ensure it never happens again. We must ask how reparation is to be made to those who suffered and what is our role in ensuring that happens. We must also ensure the perpetrators are held to account and, as leaders of civic society, we must put structures in place to provide accountability on an ongoing basis. The church must have a conversation with itself in this regard.

This kind of abuse has also happened in other places such as Newfoundland, Canada, the United States and other parts of the world. Let us not forget that what we are reaping is a history of extraordinary power by individuals within the church over their people. In effect, civic society allowed that to happen. Over the years the church was so powerful that we allowed it to do whatever it chose. Senator Feeney asked how anyone could say that Canon Law supersedes civil law. However, we know that has been the case. We need only look at hospitals, particularly maternity hospitals, where the lives of women with cancer were at risk but they were not given treatment because Canon Law said they could not have it. That is a fact. We know it happened. In recent weeks a situation arose in the Mater Hospital. Let us be clear, we have only now begun to debate what kind of society we wish to have and whether Canon Law or civic law is superior. In the past, people did not even ask the question referred to by Senator Feeney. The rights of minority religions were simply not allowed to be expressed within civic society. I hope that day is over. We must look at the context in which this abuse occurred and how we were all responsible for it. We now see how an all powerful institution — the Catholic Church — has abused its power over the most vulnerable in society.

There is a major issue around sexuality in the church. In a situation where there was a total division between church and State one could question whether we, as legislators, had any right or role in commenting on the workings of the church or how it does its business. However, there is such a crossover between the role of the church in civic society in terms of schools and hospitals that we have no choice but to do that. We must clearly define the relationship that should exist with the church as regards fundamental issues like health. Let us do that and not just say that the publication of the report is enough because that is not the case. Other fundamentals must also be put in place such as the extension of the Stay Safe programme, on which we are all at one. It was a shock for some people to discover that the Stay Safe programme is not available in all schools. The Minister of State, Deputy Brian Lenihan, has a role to ensure that happens. The issue is far too important to be ignored.

I am not a theologian but a number of years ago when I first came to live in Dublin I did a course in feminist theology in UCD because I was very interested in the subject. It was given by a woman called Mary Condren who is now based in Maynooth. She has claimed — quite rightly in my opinion, although I am not a theologian — that there is nothing in church history to bar her from being a priest. I was discussing this matter with my mother on Sunday. She is in her 80s and takes a great interest in these matters. She has come around to the view that nothing should stand in the way of women being priests.