Seanad debates

Thursday, 3 December 2009

Report by Commission of Investigation into Catholic Archdiocese of Dublin: Statements

 

Photo of Eugene ReganEugene Regan (Fine Gael)

The central issue in the Murphy report is the institutional response to suspicions, complaints and knowledge of child sexual abuse between 1975 and 2004. It addressed the response of both the church and State authorities. In the light of the comments in the report about the role of the Garda, the health boards and the HSE, one is entitled draw to the attention of the Minister, the Minister of State with responsibility for children and the Government how these matters should be dealt with and the appropriate institutional response. Where there is a failure in this response, it is legitimate to raise these issues with the Government. The Minister should not be so sensitive where he is called to account regarding failings of the justice system in this regard.

The Murphy report is exemplary in its thoroughness, erudition and sensitivity to the issue of child sexual abuse. It is thorough in its analysis of the internal workings of church law, canon law and the interaction between church and State authorities. In particular, it lifts the veil of secrecy on the church and gives us an insight into the workings and interconnection between the different authorities within it. While the terms of reference did not provide for the commission to determine whether there were cases of child abuse, the detailed analysis of individual cases highlights the systemic failure not only of the church but also of the State authorities.

The report concludes:

The Commission has no doubt that clerical child sexual abuse was covered up by the Archdiocese of Dublin and other Church authorities over much of the period covered by the Commission's remit. The structures and rules of the Catholic Church facilitated that cover-up. The State authorities facilitated the cover-up by not fulfilling their responsibilities to ensure that the law was applied equally to all and allowing the Church institutions to be beyond the reach of the normal law enforcement processes. The welfare of children, which should have been the first priority, was not even a factor to be considered in the early stages. Instead the focus was on the avoidance of scandal and the preservation of the good name, status and assets of what the institution regarded as its most important members - the priests.

The report refers to the suggestion by church leaders that they were on a learning curve regarding child sexual abuse and it points to the professional qualifications and academic background of the church leaders during the relevant period. It also points to the prescriptions in Canon Law and the long-established church procedures to deal with the issue of child sexual abuse by clergy. It is on that basis that Ms Justice Murphy did not find it credible for the church to invoke ignorance of the law as an excuse in those circumstances, but in the public mind there was a learning curve. It is only in latter years that we have come to appreciate the full horror of this vice in society and in our institutions.

The Minister alluded to the level of awareness, which has increased dramatically since the 1990s, but it took a long time. The report refers to social workers who were on the front line dealing with these issues. They told the commission that awareness and knowledge of child sexual abuse did not emerge in Ireland until the early 1980s. In the early stages of the period under examination, the deference paid by gardaí at the highest level of the force to the church is highlighted, as they did not consider that complaints of child sexual abuse fell within their remit. They felt it was more appropriate for the complaints to be dealt with by the church. It was only after the "Prime Time" edition, "Cardinal Secrets", in October 2002 that a major co-ordinated investigation into this issue took place headed by the domestic violence sexual assault investigation unit of the Garda.

The issue of delay was a factor in the approach to prosecution by the Director of Public Prosecutions which indicated a lack of appreciation and understanding of the issue. The report outlines the evolution of thinking in regard to delay. There was the issue of the dominance of the abuser over the child affected and the report examined why the child would not make a complaint. The test was recently determined by the Supreme Court that it was an issue of whether there could be a fair trial of the person accused. It has taken a long time for all of the institutions to fully appreciate the horror and carnage created by this abuse. I refer to its insidiousness and how difficult it is to tackle.

In its analysis of Canon Law a point emerges in the report that is most telling, namely, that when they complained, the main concern of the parents of an abused child was that other children would not be subject to the same abuse. That their complaint was not followed up, given credence or treated seriously by the church is what they found most offensive.

It also shows a lack of precision in Canon Law on this issue, a lack of knowledge among church leaders of the provisions of Canon Law on the issue but, most insidiously, the secrecy and confidentiality that go to the core of the problem. This is the need to protect the institution and bind the complainant to secrecy and confidentiality. Some light emerges in this chapter with Archbishop Connell being one of the first bishops in the world to order trials of priests under Canon Law. There is also light at the end of the tunnel in respect of the procedures, albeit adopted belatedly, beginning with the framework document in 1996. However, the failure of the church to implement its Canon Law rules in this period is extraordinary. The focus was always on the accused. In many cases, where allegations were made against a priest, he was allowed to continue in his ministry, even though he had made admissions of guilt. I refer to the cynical way in which many complaints were treated such as that of the mother who complained and was told the complaint would have to come from her daughter if it was to be taken up by the church. The report methodically analyses the respective roles of individual bishops and archbishops. There is significant change over the period and the general conclusion is that, with few exceptions, they behaved very poorly in dealing with complaints. That changed in latter years with new procedures, the effect of legal action and public condemnation.

The report highlights the role of State authorities, the Garda Síochána, the health boards and the HSE. Many lessons can be learned in this regard. The report points out that Garda investigations into various complaints were sometimes comprehensive and at other times, cursory. Many of the complainants who gave evidence to the commission praised the professionalism and courtesy encountered when making complaints to the Garda Síochána specialist child sex abuse unit at Harcourt Street, Dublin. The commission notes that investigations carried out by the unit are generally well conducted. It suggests the unit should have responsibility for investigating all child abuse complaints because of the expertise it has developed. That is a recommendation that should be taken up.

The report points to the need to clarify the role of the HSE in respect of non-family abuse and set out its powers to perform that role. These issues must be addressed by the Minister and the Government.

The Stay Safe programme deals with inappropriate sexual contact and secrecy and is designed to help children to be more aware of the possibilities of interference and abuse. I bring to the attention of the Government the reaction of the church to the introduction of the programme and the fact that it is not being implemented in all schools. It is only implemented in 85% of schools.

I refer to the report on children in institutional care and the 2008 care inspection report of the Health Information and Quality Authority. This shows various elements of the system where the necessary safeguards are not in place. We can talk about the past and the hurt and suffering of those affected but we must ensure we learn lessons from the information contained in the report. We must introduce the necessary protections in State institutions, not just within church institutions.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.