Fiona O'Malley (Progressive Democrats)

I welcome the Minister of State. First, I pay tribute to the victims who have had the courage to come forward and had to endure not only the abuse in the first instance but the subsequent denial and cover-up. As Senator Norris said, the other people whom it is important to remember are members of the church who remain faithful to the greater good of the church rather than the institution as it is. I think particularly of my own grandmother who had, as Senator Bacik described it, something of a blind faith believing priests could do no wrong. I am sure she was typical of many. Were she alive today she would be horrified at how the church has conducted itself, particularly in respect of the most vulnerable.

The report makes for depressing and disturbing reading. I pay tribute to the commission for its extremely thorough work, especially on issues such as canon law. This is the third report to be published on the sexual abuse of children. The one thing that struck me on reading this report was plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. We read the same thing in the Ferns report many years ago. I am depressed somewhat by the responses, particularly the response of the church. I agree with what Senator Bacik said about the contempt shown by the papal nuncio, the Vatican and the Pope to this State inquiry. The papal nuncio was a bit touchy about the diplomatic niceties and whether the appropriate channels were used, but the bigger issue was the contempt he and the Vatican have shown to a State inquiry.

I have always found the existence of the Vatican State to be something of an aberration. Senator Norris made reference to this when he asked whether it was a religion or a state. The conduct of the papal nuncio on this issue is disturbing, as more cover up is involved. The hideous sex crimes committed against vulnerable children were one vile thing, but what is truly heinous is the nature of the cover up on the part of the Catholic church. The papal nuncio has retreated into diplomatic cover, and that is deeply regrettable.

The response has also been regrettable. This morning I spoke to a friend who is a priest, and he is of exactly the same mind, which I thought was refreshing. He is an exemplary priest, and it is good to see that in the church. He works in impoverished communities, both at home and abroad. He is very aware of the shortcomings of human nature and is very compassionate, yet he looks at the church in which he believes and how it has dealt with the crimes it has discovered. He is looking for guidance from within his own church, but it is sadly lacking. The choice of phrase by some of the bishops mentioned in the report is that they will examine their conscience on what they should do. The fact that it has taken them this long to look at their conscience shows that their conscience does not tell them the difference between what is right and what is wrong, or what is appropriate. This speaks volumes of the church, but that is a matter for the church. However, what should be of our concern is the fact that so many of our educational institutions are run by religious orders.

I would hate to be classed as somebody who is here to kick the church when it is down, because we need to recognise the good work done by the church, including educating most of us in this country. However, it is time for a modern republic finally to separate the church and the State. The State was also culpable in its collusion with this cover up, but this separation between church and State most occur, particularly in educational institutions. Our Constitution provides for people to be educated in whatever faith they wish. We are not able to carry that out and the majority of our educational establishments are Catholic, and that should end. Responsibility for education should go back to the State. We should have a lay education system and overcome all these problems with educating people in a certain faith. It is time we made the majority of national schools and secondary schools lay.

Has the Catholic church got the capacity to change and do what is necessary? I speak with a level of compassion for Desmond Connell and the problems with which he found himself dealing. These are detailed on page 9 of the report. The Catholic church is conflicted. It has a loyalty to itself and its bishops require this loyalty above all else. The religious orders consider themselves to be above the law. That is where we as a State cannot trust them to observe basic civil law. Page 9 reveals how tortured the archbishop is when dealing with the issue:

It is clear that Archbishop Connell remained troubled by the requirement of secrecy. In 2002, he allowed the Gardaí access to the archdiocesan files. The decision to do that, he told the Commission, "created the greatest crisis in my position as Archbishop" because he considered it conflicted with his duty as a bishop, to his priests.

The archbishop went on to state how he thought he was betraying his oath. This is a man of enormous faith and we can see he wants to maintain that faith to his church, but what about when it is in conflict to the basic laws of the State?

Children are good at knowing the difference between right and wrong, because they get it drummed into them at an early age. They have great clarity in their innocence about what is right and wrong. The archbishop, a very learned man, is tormented about his duty to the law of the church or the law of the nation. We have to be clear about this and we should dwell on it, because we expect the church authorities to be equal before the law, but they do not see it that way. Their loyalty is to something else other than the State. To a certain extent, this could be described as subversive. Reading the report, I began to think that the church was behaving in a subversive manner. There was some collusion with the Garda Síochána, as extraordinary deference was entertained.

I agree with what Senator Norris said about ending the exclusion of church organisations from the equality legislation. If we are equal before the law, we need to say that. When this debate concludes, I feel we should have a minute's silence for the memory of the people who were victims and who suffered these appalling sex crimes, which were compounded by the cover up on behalf of the church. Senator Boyle referred to the people who are no longer with us because they were so tortured that they took their own lives. We need to give those people a moment's reflection. I ask that the House hold a minute's silence at the conclusion of the debate so that we reflect on the courage of those people.