Labhrás Ó Murchú (Fianna Fail)

Over the years on the Order of Business, when each new incident of sexual abuse came to light, we had some limited debate. Of course, it was not possible to have a full focus on the issue. When the Ferns Report was published we were dealing with a totally different situation. It was certainly one of the blackest days in the history both of the church and of the country. In a way, it impacted on every citizen and every home. It also impacted on beliefs that we have all had passed on to us from generation to generation. It would not be an overstatement to say that the nation was absolutely stunned by the revelations. The report's explicit outline of cases was horrifying. In the first instance, most people thought of the victims. One could easily envisage a similar situation involving one's own family, relatives, friends or people one knew within the community. That is what made the report most horrifying.

Invariably, when one contributes to a debate, one tries to do something constructive and hopefully helpful. Where there is hurt one hopes to bring some consolation to those who have suffered. In this case, because the debate has been so intensive — not just within the Oireachtas, but also in the community at large — it almost reaches a point of disbelief and denial. Worse still, it can reach a point of weariness, which is the worst thing that can happen in this terrible episode in the life of our country.

I listened to many of the contributions here, including the address by the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Lenihan, on the previous occasion. We were glad some people took time out to deal with this subject in a balanced way because it would be impossible to deal with it in an unemotional way. In so doing they helped those who have been hurt, and their families and communities, while ensuring this occasion is not used to settle old scores or mend a chip on the shoulder.

The contributions here were particularly balanced. Every contributor spoke out of a deep sense of responsibility to ensure that what happened could never recur. That is to the credit of all contributors because they were faced with a contradiction between loyalty to a church that has stood well with us and previous generations, and the deep hurt to innocent children. It is strange that young people are the victims of priests, whose church's founder warned of what would happen to them were they to scandalise innocent young people. We too have been warned, as members of the church. I do not intend delving too deeply into the theological or psychological issues because they are for professionals, some of whom have made helpful contributions to the debate.

The contributions of professionals, parents, community leaders and people involved in sports organisations have created a fabric. How can we take that forward from this Chamber? We cannot expect the media to treat it comprehensively because from the beginning of this sorrowful, terrible episode in our lives the media could have played a better role. It played a good role in revealing the cases but it could have done better by explaining, perhaps with professional input, how this could happen. That was the question we all asked. We are beginning to understand more. Senator Lydon touched on this in a professional manner. We realise now that all people are not the same, do not have the same orientation, and are not mature enough to distinguish clearly between wrong and right.

As the scandals started to emerge the bishops were left reeling. They did not know what to do. First, they took sanctuary, probably in a traditional method of the church, by closing down the shutters and hoping the problem would go away. We did not acknowledge that bishops do not have all the skills. They may have skills based on their academic training, and theological knowledge but they are not managers. They are not the best communicators because they have never really had to communicate but were veiled in a mystique. They took too long to react because they did not know what to do. Maybe there is a lesson there for the structures of the church, namely, that it needs to farm out responsibilities. It will never have people with all the relevant skills because the bishops are too protected and restricted by the church's structures.

Communities did not know how to respond when a difficulty was brought to their notice. Their initial sense of disbelief and denial should not have lasted so long. It should have been possible for the communities to act more quickly. Maybe they required leadership because after the first scandals came to light there were further victims who could have been saved had the community reacted too.

We need to consider the structures of the Vatican and the relationship between a diocese and the Vatican. The Vatican has no choice but to be more up-front on issues of this kind because it is beset with these problems, not only in Ireland but throughout the world. I recall talking to devout Catholics in the United States and Canada as the terrible stories there emerged and it was possibly more difficult for Catholics in that complex environment to take on board what was happening than it is in a small country. The Vatican must be more open on issues of this kind.

There may be some confusion over the issue of the relationship between Canon Law and civil law. No one doubts that a crime is a crime and the perpetrator is answerable to the civil authority. I am not even sure the church argued against that point. Several times in the past when moral issues were debated and referenda on them held, we touched superficially on the relationship between canon and civil law.

Canon Law can lay down for its members the requirements of the church and pinpoint their parameters for its leaders, based on tradition, theology and revelation. That should not change. If Canon Law conflicts with civil law, the civil law must take precedence. We should not, however, suggest that the church cannot have its own laws and regulations for its members. That applies not only to the Catholic Church but to any church or organisation. We must be careful in that regard.

The Government has acted wisely against the emotional background of this issue. All the Government spokespersons to whom I have listened in all the interviews so far have provided an anchor for us to ensure that we are not overcome by weariness, that we will respond to the seriousness of the situation, will think in terms of reparation and will ensure that the victims are helped, as well as the victims' families, because invariably, such a traumatic incident in a family impacts on the whole family. The whole family and even the extended family become the victims in such a case and must be helped.

There must also be interaction with the church and Government. I would not like to think that in some way we would suddenly decide that whatever good the church did in the past, whatever potential it has for the future, and despite the respected status it still has with so many people in this country, we would undermine all that simply to prove a point. We must be careful not to do so.

I gather from recent comments of the bishops that they may now to some extent have taken professional advice as to how they should respond to these issues. Listening to them, I believe they are willing to listen. There should not be megaphone diplomacy. There must be discussion across the table with the bishops. The bishops must accept that what has happened has no justification and that there will be greater expectation in the future for the bishops and the church to show they are open to interacting with the community, not just on these but on other issues. I will repeat a remark made by others, namely, that whenever we wanted help from the church in our family or community, it was always there. When we wanted education and could not afford it we got it free, from the ChristianBrothers in my case and from other religious orders in other cases.

Recently I spoke at a function attended by a 93 year old nun whose convent is now closed. I always remember what those nuns did for the town in question, and not just in education, which was so vital. I recall the manner in which the nuns were available for every difficulty and problem with which the State or local authority could not contend with or handle. The nuns provided an oasis at all times. I remember when the Christian Brothers were celebrating what I think was the 150th anniversary of their coming to Cashel. I was secretary of the past pupils' union at the time and we had a reunion. Past pupils attended from all over the world out of appreciation for the Christian Brothers. My knowledge may be limited, but I could never point a finger at any Christian Brother, nun or priest in my community. I am not saying no difficulties existed but I was never aware of them.

Bearing all that in mind, the issue is well and truly debated. The Ferns Report is a milestone in the history of the church and the country. Those who suffered and were so hurt must now feel they are being listened to and will be helped. We must look beyond that to the next milestone. The church has overcome many problems in the past, problems which impact on the country. I hope that a positive result will emerge from the debate.