Seanad debates

Thursday, 3 December 2009

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

 

4:00 am

Photo of David NorrisDavid Norris (Independent)

I welcome the Minister of State. I am sorry his colleague, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, is not here but I am sure he will pass on what has been said in the House in his absence. I have spoken to the Minister about certain aspects of these cases in the past and found him to be someone who is sympathetic, intelligent and on whom I can rely to take up the matters raised by me and others.

I do not gloat about this issue. It is desperately sad and shaming for anyone who calls himself or herself a Christian of whatever denomination. I feel the greatest sympathy primarily but not only for the victims but also for the decent faithful - the ordinary, prayerful churchgoing people with a devotion to their church that has lasted for centuries. I feel really sorry for them because their faith has been diminished and weakened by the atrocious behaviour of the senior officers of their church both here and in Rome at the very highest level, to which this goes. I also feel really sorry for the good members of the religious - priests, nuns and brothers. I know of many, for whom this is most desperately painful. They will get the abuse on the street and very often this will happen to the decent ones, those who have sacrificed a life and lived the imposed life of celibacy. The imposition of celibacy is a grievous moral wrong committed against those who aspire to the priesthood. I have these feelings of sorrow. However, this was all too predictable.

In an early story, The Sisters, James Joyce isolated the entire issue and came to the same conclusions made in this report. It is the story of a priest with no vocation. Having discovered this and challenged his idea that God exists in the fundamental sense, he retreats from that discovery into a barren exploration and imposition on a child of the niceties of Canon Law. This is seen as the real violation of the child, even though there are suggestions of child abuse also. How prophetic was the mind of James Joyce 100 years ago to see this cancer at the heart of the church?

Just as in the case of Mr. Nixon, the difficulty does not lie simply in the commission of these acts. The real damage is being done to the church by the cover-up. In Nixon's case it was not the burglary but the cover-up. As grievous, dreadful, appalling and unforgivable as the violations of children's rights and innocence were, it is the cover-up that will be the long burning fuse that will do the damage, as well as the retreat to Canon Law which is club law. The rules of no church can supersede the laws of the State, nor should they. However, we know that actually they do and that they have done so, with the connivance of Governments of all hues, including those involving the Labour Party and Fine Gael.

I understand this is a practical matter and refer to the exemptions granted under equality legislation to all of the churches. This is an area in which the rights and welfare of children are handled. Repeatedly, in the recent months I have highlighted in the House how the rights of children were violated legally by the church because of this exemption. I put this directly to the Minister of State and call on him to take it back to his colleagues. If he does one thing, let him end the abuse of privilege and make the Minister's words uttered at the weekend real, when he stated no institution and no church was above the law of the land. That is the position as it should be but it is not the position as it stands.

Having read the report, will any Minister inform me if it is appropriate that, principally as a result of lobbying by reactionary elements within the Roman Catholic Church, the welfare of children under the Civil Partnership Bill, under discussion in the adjoining Chamber this very day, will once again be violated? I will vote against the Bill because it constitutes a further systematic, deliberate and knowing abuse of the rights, not of gay parents, but of children in the State. I call on the Government to clean up its act.

The report comes in three parts. The first sets out the parameters and investigates the implications of certain cases but does not go into the detail of particular cases. The examination of particular cases is outlined somewhat more in part 2, while part 3 is the appendix.

I refer to the manner in which complaints were dealt with by the church. The report dismisses completely and as laughable the idea that senior church people were on a learning curve. That myth is exploded. They knew very well the seriousness and the implications of what was happening. However, the only implications in which they were interested were those related to the avoidance of scandal, their reputation and the good name of the offending priests. How extraordinary is that? What good name did they have? They were also interested in the preservation of assets and set about looking for insurance. This tells us they knew well enough what was taking place. As they were cute enough to look for insurance, they knew bloody well something was going on. Every bishop's primary loyalty was to the church, which included taking out insurance to protect the assets of the church.

This was not unique to Ireland. It happened also in Boston in the United States of America, admittedly with the involvement of Irish personnel for the most part. The report of the Massachusetts attorney stated secrecy protected the institution at the expense of children. The report highlights some of the most appallingly savage ironies. For example, how many of the priests concerned were appointed to official positions in marriage tribunals? Does being involved in paedophilia, chronic alcoholism and serial adultery qualify these alleged celibates to serve on Catholic marriage tribunals and instruct unfortunate women on how to conduct their sexual lives? What is detailed in the report is astonishing. Bishop Kavanagh attempted to influence the Garda. I would have thought that to be a criminal offence. All through the report the trail runs back to Rome. The commission finds that the events it investigated happened because bishops were appointed not on the basis of their moral or intellectual authority but rather because of their doctrinal orthodoxy. In such circumstances, how could the outcome have been any different?

Some behaved comparatively well. Monsignor Stenson, for example, clearly, thoroughly and forensically examined and investigated matters brought to his attention. I accept that he may not have possessed the skills to deal with complainants but he certainly did his work well. The position is the same in respect of the Garda. However, I refute Senator O'Donovan's contention that the highest ranking officers acted well in dealing with these matters. These officers were useless and craven and reported to the archbishop. It should have been the other way around. Younger members of the force rebelled against this. I thank God for these individuals and their honesty, decency and courage. We are aware of how the church dealt with whistleblowers. I am sure the Minister of State, Deputy Moloney, will remember that remarkable man in Maynooth - I cannot recall his name - who blew the whistle on Monsignor Michael Ledwith. The bishops ganged up on him, effectively silenced him and then ran him off to some little bog hole. That is how people were dealt with when they told the truth.

There is work for the Oireachtas to do on this matter. The report indicates that the Child Care Act 1991 does not sufficiently clarify the powers and duties of the health authorities. I ask the Minister of State to make a note of this fact and ensure amending legislation is brought forward at once. The report also indicates that the families of victims behaved charitably towards priests and attempted to understand the difficulties experienced by the latter. However, neither the State nor the church lived up to its responsibilities.

Let us turn to Rome and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. It is appalling that letters sent by the commission to the papal nuncio were ignored and that diplomatic matters of etiquette were identified as being more important and relevant than protecting children from serial rape. It is unfortunate and to the detriment of the church of Rome that it is both a state and a religion. My thinking is the same with regard to the Church of England. It is a mistake that the Queen of England is head of the latter. That is an historical nonsense and the Church of England would be better off without it. The papal nuncio is a diplomat and he should be called in by the relevant Minister. Serious questions arise about the functions of the embassy of a tiny and unrealistic state. The individual to which I refer is the head of that embassy's diplomatic corps in Ireland. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith - formerly the Inquisition and previously presided over by Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI - and the papal nuncio have a great deal for which to answer.

The report identifies the patronage of 477 national schools as being among the functions of the Dublin archdiocese. That is a matter to which consideration must be given, particularly in view of the fact that taxpayers' money is allocated to such schools. The church can sack people who work in these schools if it does not approve of their lifestyles and such individuals have no legal recourse. Will the Minister of State reiterate what has been said to the effect that the church is not above the law in the State? I am of the view that it is most definitely above the law. Cardinal Connell who no doubt is a well meaning academic is quoted in the report as stating:

I think the Commission will have to accept that on my first meeting of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, I took an oath that I would not reveal what was discussed at meetings of the Congregation and I will of course be as true to that oath as I am to the oath I have taken here.

Again, it is obvious that the rules of the church supersede those of the State.

There is the extraordinary situation where the guilt of priests was diminished if they were determined to be paedophiles. Such priests were treated well and sent to institutions of very doubtful repute where they were repackaged, returned and then sent to new parishes. Why have the names of the consultant psychiatrists who dealt with these individuals not been provided? I would like to know their identities rather than merely been informed that assessment or treatment was provided by the Granada Institute.

Let us consider the way priests took evidence from victims. In that context, a handwritten note attributed to a Fr. Dolan reads, "gain his knowledge/tell him nothing". In other words, the idea was to place victims at a disadvantage. There is also the matter of misprision of felony, a matter into which I will not go.

I refer to the case involving Mervyn Rundle. I previously referred to the concept of guardian ad litem, which I was responsible for having included in law. A guardian ad litem is someone who represents the interests of a child. This concept only came into play in one case, namely, that of Mervyn Rundle, in which a friend of the family represented that individual and his parents. The letter relating to this case which is contained in the report should be read by everyone, particularly the final accusatory paragraph in which the author lays it on the line in respect of what must be done.

Let us consider how Archbishop McQuaid dealt with the case of Fr. Edmondus who took photographs of the genital organs of nine year old girls. The archbishop thought Fr. Edmondus had displayed an understandable curiosity and innocence and, after all, all he was doing was taking photographs. How extraordinary. If one considers the case of Marie Collins, one can see how victims are patronised and treated like dirt. Cardinal Connell informed the commission that he did not remove Fr. Edmondus from his parish and that, "This gave rise to a lot of trouble from one of the victims." In other words, Ms Collins was a source of trouble and an inconvenience to the church. Contrast this with Archbishop McQuaid's understanding of the wonderment of Fr. Edmondus when looking at female genital organs, allegedly for the first time.

Let us consider another case, namely, that of Fr. Vidal who began a relationship with a girl aged 13 years but who denied the existence of such a relationship. There was a relationship and it continued until the girl turned 21 years. He was then laicised and married the girl. Their marriage eventually broke down and Fr. Vidal applied to the church to be readmitted. He was subsequently sent to a monastery and returned to the church. This would be astonishing if it were not established fact. Immediately after these events Bishop O'Mahony began to shred the relevant documents. If that is not an indication of guilt, I do not know what is.

If victims gave evidence to the church in respect of the matters to which the report of the commission relates, they were sworn to secrecy. They were then informed that if they broke their oath of secrecy, they would be excommunicated. That is one of the things which prevented people from going to the Garda.

Some of the events that occurred were laughable. Please God, let the spirit of Jonathan Swift appear and do justice to this stuff. One of the priests to whom the report refers was treated with Depo-Provera, a strong contraceptive which the church has banned and outlawed but which it used on its renegade priests because it had the effect of chemically castrating them. There is also the extraordinary business of priests, in the aftermath of their offences, being appointed to marriage tribunals, to work as chaplains with Alcoholics Anonymous and youth clubs. That is just appalling. The assessment of the commission is that the handling of the large number of allegations was nothing short of catastrophic.

I will conclude by making two final points. The first relates to another priest who had relationships with eight women in Africa, 26 in Ireland and three elsewhere. It is indicated in the report that full intercourse rarely took place - obviously what the church would describe as a form of unnatural intercourse occurred - and that contraceptives were always used. This relates to a member of the priesthood, the other members of which will probably be preaching against his actions on Sunday next.

My final point relates to the letter on pages 459 and 460 of the report which was written by a wonderful person who is not named. The man in question acted as a true Christian friend to Mervyn Rundle and his family. The entire letter is worth reading but the fourth point it contains is signal. It states, "That the Roman Catholic Church which claims to be the moral guardians of the people treat child abuse in such an off-hand manner calls into question the Church's ability to govern anything." I am saddened by it. I do not gloat or wish the extinction of the church which has a long and extraordinary history in this country. I commiserate with the faithful and the good priests but this institution must be ruthlessly examined. Every diocese must be scrutinised. We cannot do a patchwork examination. What about the other victims? Are they to be left in a limbo which will exist for them even though it has been theologically abolished by Rome?

It is a sad day but a good day that we have this report even with the gross insensitivity of the commission itself. I would like to say the following to it, and I hope it gets wind of it. Has it ever thought, or tried to imagine, not only what it is like to be a victim but to be a gay victim? It talked outrageous nonsense in regard to the case where a priest met a 15 year old youth in a gay club. He was poncing around parading himself as a chaplain to the gay community. The report said it would be very good to have a chaplain. It would not be after the abuse gay people have taken, including being called intrinsically disordered, objectively evil and a plague. That all came from the centre of the church and from Cardinal Ratzinger who sheltered some of these people who molested children. It would not be appropriate; it would be like having a Nazi on the Jewish council.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.