Went to see #SpotlightMovie this evening, a powerful and emotive dramatisation of the story of the Boston Globe’s uncovering of the cover up of child sexual abuse by Catholic priests in the Archdiocese of Boston. As in Ireland and elsewhere the media have been at the forefront of helping survivors reveal their experiences, their disclosures to Church authorities and the cover up by those authorities that facilitated so much more sexual abuse leaving a heavy price to be paid by many more children.
#SpotlightMovie depicts so well the efforts the Catholic hierarchy in Boston went to to fight the exposition of the truth about their despicable actions being uncovered. The same had been happening here in Ireland with Catholic Church authorities behaving in a most cowardly, deceitful and self-serving way to play down their own roles in similar cover ups and present each revelation as an isolated incident all the time knowing they had many files on many priests which would tell a different and devastating story.
In many US cities, here in Ireland and many other countries around the world inquiries of state eventually followed survivor stories and media revelations and every such inquiry has found that Catholic Church authorities engaged in many tactics to wilfully and systematically cover up the sexual abuse of children by its priests for decades with heinous consequences for many more children. The fact that the truth of that has had to be dragged out of each Diocese that has been investigated only serves to add insult to injury.
The position to this very day at that ‘great listening post’ the Vatican is that nobody there knew any of this was going on and played no part in any cover up – not in the slightest bit credible. Unfortunately that doesn’t stop some people from continuing to line up to lend credibility to every self-serving window dressing piece of nonsense rolled out at the Vatican to help prop up their claims of ignorance. No greater fools than those so willing.
Well done to Tom McCarthy, Josh Singer, Mark Ruffalo, Michael Keaton, Rachel McAdams, John Slattery, Stanley Tucci, Brian d'Arcy James, Liev Schreiber, and Billy Crudup on a great movie.
31st January 2016
Sunday, January 31, 2016
Sunday, September 23, 2012
Children's Referendum 2012
I warmly welcome the announcement last week of the date for the Children’s Referendum, Saturday 10th November 2012, and publication of the proposed wording of a new Article 42 A in the Constitution, titled Children.
These developments mark another hugely significant step in the progress this Government has made in advancing the agenda of the safety, welfare, protection and rights of children since the General Election in February 2011.
An excellent starting point at that time was the appointment of Frances Fitzgerald TD as our first ever Minister for Children and Youth Affairs with full executive powers. In a speech I gave to the Fine Gael National Conference in March 2010 I said that ‘A new Department of Children, with a Minister who knows what he or she is doing, is a must for any new Government interested in seriously addressing the current broken system’ so I was very happy to see Minister Fitzgerald’s appointment when the new Government was formed.
In that same speech in March 2010 I also supported the many calls that had been made for the State’s child protection guidelines, Children First, to be put on a statutory basis. Thankfully progress has also made in this regard with the publication of the Children First Bill in May of this year. The Bill is not perfect and will hopefully be enhanced during this Dáil term, particularly around the area of compliance.
With the publication of the Ferns, Ryan, Murphy and Cloyne Reports members of the public were understandably repulsed at the extent to which the sexual abuse of so many children had been covered up by members of the Catholic Hierarchy and were shocked to learn that such acts of concealment, despite their horrific consequences, were not criminal offences. Thanks to the recent passing of the Criminal Justice (Withholding of Information on Offences Against Children and Vulnerable Persons) Act such concealment of the abuse of children would be treated very differently in the future if it were repeated, by anyone.
Another significant piece of legislation currently going through the Oireachtas is the National Vetting Bureau Bill which aims to put the vetting of people working with children on a statutory basis and, for the first time, will allow soft information to be disclosed by the Gardai to some potential employers.
These changes, at governmental, ministerial and legislative level, are the context into which the proposed new Article 42 A is brought. This is why it always amazes me to hear opponents to this proposed amendment say that on its own it’s not going to bring about so many of the changes that are necessary to enhance children’s rights and protection in this country. Most people, who have a genuine interest in this agenda, already know that Article 42 A is not on its own.
The wording for Article 42 A is as follows:
PROPOSED NEW ARTICLE 42A
Children
1. The State recognises and affirms the natural and imprescriptible rights of all children and shall, as far as practicable, by its laws protect and vindicate those rights.
2.1° In exceptional cases, where the parents, regardless of their marital status, fail in their duty towards their children to such extent that the safety or welfare of any of their children is likely to be prejudicially affected, the State as guardian of the common good shall, by proportionate means as provided by law, endeavour to supply the place of the parents, but always with due regard for the natural and imprescriptible rights of the child.
2.2° Provision shall be made by law for the adoption of any child where the parents have failed for such a period of time as may be prescribed by law in their duty towards the child and where the best interests of the child so require.
3.Provision shall be made by law for the voluntary placement for adoption and the adoption of any child.
4.1° Provision shall be made by law that in the resolution of all proceedings-
i brought by the State, as guardian of the common good, for the purpose of preventing the safety and welfare of any child from being prejudicially affected, or
ii concerning the adoption, guardianship or custody of, or access to, any child, the best interests of the child shall be the paramount consideration.
4.2° Provision shall be made by law for securing, as far as practicable, that in all proceedings referred to in subsection 1° of this section in respect of any child who is capable of forming his or her own views, the views of the child shall be ascertained and given due weight having regard to the age and maturity of the child.
I welcome this wording and support it insofar as it goes. When studying it I was particularly mindful of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) is a comprehensive agreement on the rights of children, adopted by the United Nations over twenty years ago. Ireland ratified the UNCRC in 1992.
In Section 1 of the proposed Article 42 A above The State recognises and affirms the natural and imprescriptible rights of all children. For me the word ‘all’ is very important here and its inclusivity reflects Article 2 of the UNCRC which states that ‘States Parties shall respect and ensure the rights set forth in the present Convention to each child within their jurisdiction without discrimination of any kind, irrespective of the child's or his or her parent's or legal guardian's race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national, ethnic or social origin, property, disability, birth or other status’.
In Section 2 1° above it is to be welcomed that the State shall, by proportionate means, endeavour to supply the place of the parents in such exceptional cases as where the parents, regardless of their marital status, fail in their duty towards their children to such extent that the safety or welfare of any of their children is likely to be prejudicially affected. I think it is wise that the term exceptional circumstances has been defined within the Section.
Sections 2 2° and 3 facilitate the introduction of legislation which will allow for the adoption of a child where it is in the child’s best interest, regardless of the marital status of the child’s parents. Section 3 also facilitates legislation allowing for the voluntary placing of any child for adoption. These Sections properly reflect Article 21 of UNCRC which states that ‘States Parties that recognize and/or permit the system of adoption shall ensure that the best interests of the child shall be the paramount consideration’.
Section 4 facilitates legislation allowing that in the resolution of all proceedings brought by the State for the purpose of preventing the safety and welfare of any child from being prejudicially affected, or concerning the adoption, guardianship or custody of, or access to, any child, the best interests of the child shall be the paramount consideration.
This Section is where the problems are with the wording of this new Article 42 A. Firstly the best interests of the child are only required to be the paramount consideration where the proceedings have been brought by the State. What about proceedings brought against the State? Or between other parties? Secondly what happened to Section 2 (iii) of Article 42 as was proposed by the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Health and Children in February 2010 which spoke of ‘the right of the child’s voice to be heard in any judicial and administrative proceedings affecting the child, having regard to the child’s age and maturity’?
The right of a child to have their best interests as the paramount consideration in administrative proceedings affecting them is completely missing from the new Article 42 A which we are all due to vote on on 10th November next and this is, in my opinion, a significant shortfall.
The need for this right to be expressed in our Constitution has been plain for all to see for many years but was particularly well documented in A Children’s Rights Analysis of Investigations by Dr Ursula Kilkelly, Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Law, University College Cork which was commissioned by the Ombudsman for Children Emily Logan and published in April 2011.
This Analysis considered a variety of investigation statements undertaken by the Office of the Children’s Ombudsman from a children’s rights perspective and revealed that with few exceptions there was a lack of awareness about the impact of public administrative decision-making on the lives and rights of children and their families. The 10 investigation statements, chosen by the Office of the Ombudsman for Children for consideration were:
1. Failure to provide appropriate housing in the case of a child with a disability.
2. Provision of school transport for 23 children.
3. The refusal by a County Council to grant tenancy of a local authority dwelling.
4. The delay in a suitable placement being made available to a young person by the
HSE.
5. Eligibility for Concessionary School Transport of a Child with Special Needs.
6. Inability by a child with autism to avail of home tuition under the July provision
scheme for 2003-2005.
7. The Administrative Actions of the Department of Education and Science with
respect to an application for a home tuition grant made by a child with Autism.
8. Investigation into HSE provision for a mother and her baby, both in the care of
the State.
9. Appropriate care for a young person who died in HSE care.
10. Provision of supports and therapeutic services and care for a child with special needs in foster care.
In her foreward to the publication Emily Logan stated that decision-making that affected children directly and sometimes indirectly was not informed by its impact on the children concerned; nor was it informed by children’s rights principles. She went on to say that the parameters of the child’s best interests and the child’s right to be heard were not used to guide administrative actions or decision-making to any great extent if at all. The procedures, and in some cases those applying them, were not aware of or sensitive to the needs or rights of children or their families.
The Ombudsman wrote that ‘Other considerations appeared to dominate over ensuring that the rights and interests of individual children are met. In this respect, the individual children appeared to be largely invisible in the decision-making process. There are examples of an excessively bureaucratic approach to public decision-making, and often a disconnect between administrative decision-makers and those affected by those decisions’.
Hard to understand why the need to have the best interests of children as the paramount consideration in administrative proceedings which affect them was not included in this proposed new Article 42 A. The UNCRC also references this matter in at least two Articles.
Article 3 states that:
In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.
Article 12 states that:
States Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child.
I really do hope that a way is found over the next few weeks to facilitate a change to the proposed wording to reflect the need to have the best interests of children as the paramount consideration in administrative proceedings which affect them included.
I do support everything in this proposed wording of a new Article 42 A in the Constitution, titled Children, and I will certainly be voting YES, but there is room for improvement.
END
23 September 2012
These developments mark another hugely significant step in the progress this Government has made in advancing the agenda of the safety, welfare, protection and rights of children since the General Election in February 2011.
An excellent starting point at that time was the appointment of Frances Fitzgerald TD as our first ever Minister for Children and Youth Affairs with full executive powers. In a speech I gave to the Fine Gael National Conference in March 2010 I said that ‘A new Department of Children, with a Minister who knows what he or she is doing, is a must for any new Government interested in seriously addressing the current broken system’ so I was very happy to see Minister Fitzgerald’s appointment when the new Government was formed.
In that same speech in March 2010 I also supported the many calls that had been made for the State’s child protection guidelines, Children First, to be put on a statutory basis. Thankfully progress has also made in this regard with the publication of the Children First Bill in May of this year. The Bill is not perfect and will hopefully be enhanced during this Dáil term, particularly around the area of compliance.
With the publication of the Ferns, Ryan, Murphy and Cloyne Reports members of the public were understandably repulsed at the extent to which the sexual abuse of so many children had been covered up by members of the Catholic Hierarchy and were shocked to learn that such acts of concealment, despite their horrific consequences, were not criminal offences. Thanks to the recent passing of the Criminal Justice (Withholding of Information on Offences Against Children and Vulnerable Persons) Act such concealment of the abuse of children would be treated very differently in the future if it were repeated, by anyone.
Another significant piece of legislation currently going through the Oireachtas is the National Vetting Bureau Bill which aims to put the vetting of people working with children on a statutory basis and, for the first time, will allow soft information to be disclosed by the Gardai to some potential employers.
These changes, at governmental, ministerial and legislative level, are the context into which the proposed new Article 42 A is brought. This is why it always amazes me to hear opponents to this proposed amendment say that on its own it’s not going to bring about so many of the changes that are necessary to enhance children’s rights and protection in this country. Most people, who have a genuine interest in this agenda, already know that Article 42 A is not on its own.
The wording for Article 42 A is as follows:
PROPOSED NEW ARTICLE 42A
Children
1. The State recognises and affirms the natural and imprescriptible rights of all children and shall, as far as practicable, by its laws protect and vindicate those rights.
2.1° In exceptional cases, where the parents, regardless of their marital status, fail in their duty towards their children to such extent that the safety or welfare of any of their children is likely to be prejudicially affected, the State as guardian of the common good shall, by proportionate means as provided by law, endeavour to supply the place of the parents, but always with due regard for the natural and imprescriptible rights of the child.
2.2° Provision shall be made by law for the adoption of any child where the parents have failed for such a period of time as may be prescribed by law in their duty towards the child and where the best interests of the child so require.
3.Provision shall be made by law for the voluntary placement for adoption and the adoption of any child.
4.1° Provision shall be made by law that in the resolution of all proceedings-
i brought by the State, as guardian of the common good, for the purpose of preventing the safety and welfare of any child from being prejudicially affected, or
ii concerning the adoption, guardianship or custody of, or access to, any child, the best interests of the child shall be the paramount consideration.
4.2° Provision shall be made by law for securing, as far as practicable, that in all proceedings referred to in subsection 1° of this section in respect of any child who is capable of forming his or her own views, the views of the child shall be ascertained and given due weight having regard to the age and maturity of the child.
I welcome this wording and support it insofar as it goes. When studying it I was particularly mindful of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) is a comprehensive agreement on the rights of children, adopted by the United Nations over twenty years ago. Ireland ratified the UNCRC in 1992.
In Section 1 of the proposed Article 42 A above The State recognises and affirms the natural and imprescriptible rights of all children. For me the word ‘all’ is very important here and its inclusivity reflects Article 2 of the UNCRC which states that ‘States Parties shall respect and ensure the rights set forth in the present Convention to each child within their jurisdiction without discrimination of any kind, irrespective of the child's or his or her parent's or legal guardian's race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national, ethnic or social origin, property, disability, birth or other status’.
In Section 2 1° above it is to be welcomed that the State shall, by proportionate means, endeavour to supply the place of the parents in such exceptional cases as where the parents, regardless of their marital status, fail in their duty towards their children to such extent that the safety or welfare of any of their children is likely to be prejudicially affected. I think it is wise that the term exceptional circumstances has been defined within the Section.
Sections 2 2° and 3 facilitate the introduction of legislation which will allow for the adoption of a child where it is in the child’s best interest, regardless of the marital status of the child’s parents. Section 3 also facilitates legislation allowing for the voluntary placing of any child for adoption. These Sections properly reflect Article 21 of UNCRC which states that ‘States Parties that recognize and/or permit the system of adoption shall ensure that the best interests of the child shall be the paramount consideration’.
Section 4 facilitates legislation allowing that in the resolution of all proceedings brought by the State for the purpose of preventing the safety and welfare of any child from being prejudicially affected, or concerning the adoption, guardianship or custody of, or access to, any child, the best interests of the child shall be the paramount consideration.
This Section is where the problems are with the wording of this new Article 42 A. Firstly the best interests of the child are only required to be the paramount consideration where the proceedings have been brought by the State. What about proceedings brought against the State? Or between other parties? Secondly what happened to Section 2 (iii) of Article 42 as was proposed by the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Health and Children in February 2010 which spoke of ‘the right of the child’s voice to be heard in any judicial and administrative proceedings affecting the child, having regard to the child’s age and maturity’?
The right of a child to have their best interests as the paramount consideration in administrative proceedings affecting them is completely missing from the new Article 42 A which we are all due to vote on on 10th November next and this is, in my opinion, a significant shortfall.
The need for this right to be expressed in our Constitution has been plain for all to see for many years but was particularly well documented in A Children’s Rights Analysis of Investigations by Dr Ursula Kilkelly, Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Law, University College Cork which was commissioned by the Ombudsman for Children Emily Logan and published in April 2011.
This Analysis considered a variety of investigation statements undertaken by the Office of the Children’s Ombudsman from a children’s rights perspective and revealed that with few exceptions there was a lack of awareness about the impact of public administrative decision-making on the lives and rights of children and their families. The 10 investigation statements, chosen by the Office of the Ombudsman for Children for consideration were:
1. Failure to provide appropriate housing in the case of a child with a disability.
2. Provision of school transport for 23 children.
3. The refusal by a County Council to grant tenancy of a local authority dwelling.
4. The delay in a suitable placement being made available to a young person by the
HSE.
5. Eligibility for Concessionary School Transport of a Child with Special Needs.
6. Inability by a child with autism to avail of home tuition under the July provision
scheme for 2003-2005.
7. The Administrative Actions of the Department of Education and Science with
respect to an application for a home tuition grant made by a child with Autism.
8. Investigation into HSE provision for a mother and her baby, both in the care of
the State.
9. Appropriate care for a young person who died in HSE care.
10. Provision of supports and therapeutic services and care for a child with special needs in foster care.
In her foreward to the publication Emily Logan stated that decision-making that affected children directly and sometimes indirectly was not informed by its impact on the children concerned; nor was it informed by children’s rights principles. She went on to say that the parameters of the child’s best interests and the child’s right to be heard were not used to guide administrative actions or decision-making to any great extent if at all. The procedures, and in some cases those applying them, were not aware of or sensitive to the needs or rights of children or their families.
The Ombudsman wrote that ‘Other considerations appeared to dominate over ensuring that the rights and interests of individual children are met. In this respect, the individual children appeared to be largely invisible in the decision-making process. There are examples of an excessively bureaucratic approach to public decision-making, and often a disconnect between administrative decision-makers and those affected by those decisions’.
Hard to understand why the need to have the best interests of children as the paramount consideration in administrative proceedings which affect them was not included in this proposed new Article 42 A. The UNCRC also references this matter in at least two Articles.
Article 3 states that:
In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.
Article 12 states that:
States Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child.
I really do hope that a way is found over the next few weeks to facilitate a change to the proposed wording to reflect the need to have the best interests of children as the paramount consideration in administrative proceedings which affect them included.
I do support everything in this proposed wording of a new Article 42 A in the Constitution, titled Children, and I will certainly be voting YES, but there is room for improvement.
END
23 September 2012
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
St Andrew’s Church, Bagnelstown, Co. Carlow.
Text of speech I gave at St Andrew’s Church, Bagnelstown, Co. Carlow. 10th April 2012
________________________________________________________________
I would like to start by thanking Fr. Paddy Byrne and Fr. Declan Foley for the invitation to come and speak … until I met Paddy this evening I only knew him from Twitter, where he shares a very positive message …
________________________________________________________________
There was a time as a young boy, too many years ago to say when, when I thought that standing up on an altar speaking to people like yourselves, was something I would be doing all the time when I grew up.
I used to love walking through the tree lined streets of Cabra in Dublin, carrying my altar boy’s surplus and soutane around to our big red brick church, the church of Christ The King. It was huge. And special. As a child I knew it was special because of the way adults conducted themselves there. Hushed tones, apparently due deference, and everyone in their Sunday best.
I gave many years to that Church in Cabra, first as an altar boy, then in the folk group and later doing all I could to help the parish secretary and the sacristan, writing articles in the parish newsletter and preparing the altar for Mass.
All the time thinking, I was learning some of what I would need to know, when I, myself, would one day become a priest. I could think of no better way to live my life.
My experiences of childhood sexual abuse by Father Ivan Payne, who was a chaplain to our parish in Cabra, did not impair that deep rooted desire I had to one day be a priest. At first, I had thought he was a fantastic priest; charismatic, popular, great with young people and with what seemed like a healthy disinterest in things like the Creed, and even the rosary. ‘They can say that themselves’ .. is a line I heard from him more than once.
But in time, I learned, through personal experience, of that other side to Father Payne and over time, though still a young teenager, formed the view that he wasn’t such a great priest after all. His was the busiest Mass on a Sunday morning though, standing room only if you were late for the 12oclock. I used to stand on the altar, with the folk group, and think to myself … if all those people knew what I knew. But how could they ever know? I could never tell and if I did no one would ever believe.
Of course some years later I did tell the guidance counsellor in school, I was 17 years of age and the abuse had long ended, but I was feeling its effects more and more. The guidance counsellor notified people in Archbishop’s House – people he considered to be trustworthy, and sometime later it was confirmed that Father Payne had accepted the truth of my allegations. He did of course remain a priest, though it never occurred to me, at that time, that anything else was possible.
A couple of years later I made my own application to enter Clonliffe College and was eventually, and carelessly, told that I was not a suitable candidate for the priesthood. No reason was given. I was devastated. Father Ivan Payne, known to Diocesan authorities as a child molester, was more suitable for the priesthood than I was. My relationship with God, and with what I had grown up to believe was his one true Church, was crushed.
When I reported Father Payne I thought that Catholic Church authorities would be hearing unique allegations that would utterly shock them. I had no idea that I was only one of many thousands of children that had had similar experiences and that members of the Catholic Hierarchy, around the world, were well used to hearing about them.
Some years later, 1994/5, I went public about all that had happened. I had two principal concerns at that time.
Firstly, after two years of exchanging legal correspondence, I had received a relatively small amount of compensation in a private out of court settlement, and I was advised that this payment was unprecedented in the context of child sexual abuse, certainly in the context of child sexual abuse by a Catholic priest. I considered that if I had been compensated then, others who had been similarly abused were also entitled to seek redress and they might be assisted in doing so if they knew a precedent, of sorts, had been set. I also considered that going public and talking about this subject matter, almost unheard of 15 or so years ago, would be a key step in helping myself and other victims deal with our past and seek recovery.
Secondly, and more importantly, Father Ivan Payne ….. was still a serving priest in a Dublin parish with all the access to children that such a position gave him, fourteen years after I had first reported him. How much damage had he done in that time? And how many more priests like him had Catholic bishops reassigned to positions that endangered the safety of other children?
Father Payne was convicted in 1998 for the sexual abuse of eight boys over a 20 year period. Some of those offences took place after Dublin Diocesan officials had learnt about Father Payne from my guidance counsellor in school. By then, Belfast priest, Father Brendan Smyth had also been convicted and again the same pattern of cover up had left him free to rape and sexually abuse children long after he should have been stopped.
It was at that time, early 1998, that I first sought an independent inquiry into the handling of allegations of child sexual abuse against Catholic priests. Children were being sexually abused by priests already known to Catholic Church authorities to be people who should never have access to children.
The Taoiseach of the day, Mr Ahern, did not share my concerns, an inquiry of the type you suggest can only be held into matters of urgent public concern was his response. Just as shocking was the fact that his reply, moved into the public domain by me, was met with total silence the length and breadth of Ireland. The sexual abuse of children by known child molesters and rapists, not a matter of urgent public concern – shameful.
It only took another four years of good investigative journalism alongside revelation after revelation about how much Catholic bishops had known about the sexual abuse of children, before Government was forced to change its position in October 2002, following the broadcast of RTE’s Prime Time Special Cardinal Secrets, and a statutory Inquiry into the Archdiocese of Dublin was announced. Three and a half years was spent setting up the Inquiry. The Inquiry itself led to what we know now as the Murphy Report. By then we had also seen the publication of the Ferns and Ryan Reports and since then the Cloyne Report.
I was angered and saddened by the findings of these reports: The same tactics employed by Bishops for decades to knowingly, proactively conceal the sexual abuse of children in order to maintain secrecy, avoid scandal, protect the reputation of the Church, and preserve its assets.
And those tactics were not unique to the Catholic Church in Ireland. Much has being made of the 1962 and 2001 Vatican documents instructing Bishops around the world to conduct investigations into allegations of child sexual abuse in secret. But I believe that the similarity of actions of Bishops in Dioceses so far apart from each other, from Ferns to Philadelphia, from Dublin to Boston, from Manchester to Munich, demonstrate very convincingly that such practices were known about in essence if not in detail, at the highest level of Catholic Church hierarchy. This is not a problem of a few rogue Bishops. Nor is it a problem within the Catholic Church in Ireland alone.
So how has the Catholic Church responded - to the truth now being so widely known, a truth it fought so hard to hide? For me the response beggars belief to this very day and has added insult to injury.
Initially Catholic Bishops here in Ireland took some ownership of the cover up saying, in December 2009, that they were shamed by the extent of it and that it reflected a culture of cover up that existed throughout the Catholic Church in Ireland, though within days the spin had started and cover up became mismanagement, and management became failure of leadership.
In the Vatican, Pope Benedict talked about the importance of listening to victims while at the same time choosing to ignore us when we wrote to him a week before the Irish Bishops’ visit to the Vatican in early 2010. It was important to us that our views would be considered at that meeting and unlike the Bishops we were happy to publish our submission. At no time then or since has our correspondence ever been acknowledged and our views remain completely ignored.
Also in the Vatican, Secretary of State Cardinal Bertone stated that there is a relationship between paedophilia and homosexuality. This was nothing more than a reprehensible attempt to blame a small and marginalised group within society for the actions of priests who sexually abused children, in order to deflect attention away from the Church’s own role in concealing that abuse.
Secularism was also blamed, as was the media and loss of faith, one minute revelations of sexual abuse and cover up were being described as petty gossip, the next minute they were tantamount to the collective violence perpetrated by Christians on Jews over the centuries.
How different that response could, and should have looked.
To his credit Bishop Jim Moriarty got it right. I was very grateful to him for the content and tone of his resignation statement. He acknowledged that he should have challenged the prevailing culture that existed within the Archdiocese and apologised for failing to do so, this was very welcome. His acknowledgement that ‘the long struggle of survivors to be heard and respected by church authorities had revealed a culture within the Church that many would simply describe as unchristian’ was also very welcome.
If other members of the Catholic hierarchy had responded in this way things might look very different in the Catholic Church today …. Renewal must begin with accepting responsibility for the past.
Another part of our collective response to all we have learned is what we, as a society, do to ensure today’s and tomorrow’s children live in a safer world. The Catholic Church in Ireland has the National Board for Safeguarding Children, which I welcome. I also acknowledge and welcome the hard work that many people are engaged in at parish level in implementing the Safeguarding Children Guidelines, but I am concerned that implementation is reliant only on the good will of people. What happens where such good will doesn’t exist? And how seriously can we take Catholic Church leadership on child protection when such leadership remains littered with Bishops who caused the sexual abuse of children by their own actions or inactions?
I know I’m talking to you in the context of the Catholic Church but the debate about the safety, welfare, protection and rights of children is of course much wider.
We know only too well that the State is as capable of failing children as the Catholic Church is. We’ve had Reports into the deaths of children in the care of the State, reports about the absence of proper care for separated non-Irish national children, reports about the failure by the HSE and others to comply with Children First Guidelines, reports about children being left in abusive foster care situations even though serious concerns had been expressed by teachers and members of the public.
Part of my response in recent years, to all we have learned, was to join forces with people who advocate genuinely in the best interests of children, with no hidden agenda ........., to listen to the changes they felt were necessary if we, as a society, were to properly respond effectively to all we now know about past and present abuse, neglect and failure to protect children. I also took full advantage of any opportunity I could get to ensure that people in Leinster House were listening to our voices and formulating policy accordingly.
Thankfully there is a body of work underway by Government that was long overdue and it is refreshing to have a Minister for Children and Youth Affairs who is driving that work along as impressively as Frances Fitzgerald is.
In particular I welcome...
Putting the child protection guidance, Children First, on a statutory basis. This has been talked about for years and finally it is being done with publication of the legislation imminent. Safeguarding Children, which I mentioned earlier, is compliant with Children First Guidance and after the legislation is passed we will no longer rely on the good will of anyone to ensure implementation.
The Minister for Justice Alan Shatter is introducing legislation making it a criminal offence to withhold information about and arrestable offence having been committed upon a child or a vulnerable adult – all those acts of deliberate concealment of the sexual abuse of children will be a criminal offence if they are repeated ... and no exemption will, or should, be made for concealing information just because it was learned during the sacrament of confession.
Some people complain that there is too much focus on the Catholic Church with no consequences for others who have failed children just as badly. It should be noted that the HSE is to lose its management of Child and Family Support Services and those responsibilities are being transferred to the new Department of Children and Youth Affairs with, hopefully, proper lines of administrative, executive and political responsibility built into the legislaltion.
Properly enshrining the rights of children in our Constitution has also been talked about for many years, now we have a commitment from Government that it will definitely take place this year and it will be a stand-alone referendum. I very much hope the people of Ireland will give a resounding to yes to that referendum proposal when the time comes.
We need to radically enhance the monitoring and support of sex offenders living in the community, post conviction, the system, as it currently stands fails to monitor and support the offender as much as it fails to reassure the public ... and the Garda Vetting Bureau Bill seeks to address the need, amongst other things, to facilitate the passing on of soft information, as recommended by the Ferns Report 7 years ago.
Progress has been slow, but it is being made and we must never, ever, again allow any organisation, large or small, powerful or otherwise, to put self interest above the best interests of children and we must always listen to the voice of the children when we are taking decisions which affect them.
Thank you very much for your time and your attention .....
________________________________________________________________
I would like to start by thanking Fr. Paddy Byrne and Fr. Declan Foley for the invitation to come and speak … until I met Paddy this evening I only knew him from Twitter, where he shares a very positive message …
________________________________________________________________
There was a time as a young boy, too many years ago to say when, when I thought that standing up on an altar speaking to people like yourselves, was something I would be doing all the time when I grew up.
I used to love walking through the tree lined streets of Cabra in Dublin, carrying my altar boy’s surplus and soutane around to our big red brick church, the church of Christ The King. It was huge. And special. As a child I knew it was special because of the way adults conducted themselves there. Hushed tones, apparently due deference, and everyone in their Sunday best.
I gave many years to that Church in Cabra, first as an altar boy, then in the folk group and later doing all I could to help the parish secretary and the sacristan, writing articles in the parish newsletter and preparing the altar for Mass.
All the time thinking, I was learning some of what I would need to know, when I, myself, would one day become a priest. I could think of no better way to live my life.
My experiences of childhood sexual abuse by Father Ivan Payne, who was a chaplain to our parish in Cabra, did not impair that deep rooted desire I had to one day be a priest. At first, I had thought he was a fantastic priest; charismatic, popular, great with young people and with what seemed like a healthy disinterest in things like the Creed, and even the rosary. ‘They can say that themselves’ .. is a line I heard from him more than once.
But in time, I learned, through personal experience, of that other side to Father Payne and over time, though still a young teenager, formed the view that he wasn’t such a great priest after all. His was the busiest Mass on a Sunday morning though, standing room only if you were late for the 12oclock. I used to stand on the altar, with the folk group, and think to myself … if all those people knew what I knew. But how could they ever know? I could never tell and if I did no one would ever believe.
Of course some years later I did tell the guidance counsellor in school, I was 17 years of age and the abuse had long ended, but I was feeling its effects more and more. The guidance counsellor notified people in Archbishop’s House – people he considered to be trustworthy, and sometime later it was confirmed that Father Payne had accepted the truth of my allegations. He did of course remain a priest, though it never occurred to me, at that time, that anything else was possible.
A couple of years later I made my own application to enter Clonliffe College and was eventually, and carelessly, told that I was not a suitable candidate for the priesthood. No reason was given. I was devastated. Father Ivan Payne, known to Diocesan authorities as a child molester, was more suitable for the priesthood than I was. My relationship with God, and with what I had grown up to believe was his one true Church, was crushed.
When I reported Father Payne I thought that Catholic Church authorities would be hearing unique allegations that would utterly shock them. I had no idea that I was only one of many thousands of children that had had similar experiences and that members of the Catholic Hierarchy, around the world, were well used to hearing about them.
Some years later, 1994/5, I went public about all that had happened. I had two principal concerns at that time.
Firstly, after two years of exchanging legal correspondence, I had received a relatively small amount of compensation in a private out of court settlement, and I was advised that this payment was unprecedented in the context of child sexual abuse, certainly in the context of child sexual abuse by a Catholic priest. I considered that if I had been compensated then, others who had been similarly abused were also entitled to seek redress and they might be assisted in doing so if they knew a precedent, of sorts, had been set. I also considered that going public and talking about this subject matter, almost unheard of 15 or so years ago, would be a key step in helping myself and other victims deal with our past and seek recovery.
Secondly, and more importantly, Father Ivan Payne ….. was still a serving priest in a Dublin parish with all the access to children that such a position gave him, fourteen years after I had first reported him. How much damage had he done in that time? And how many more priests like him had Catholic bishops reassigned to positions that endangered the safety of other children?
Father Payne was convicted in 1998 for the sexual abuse of eight boys over a 20 year period. Some of those offences took place after Dublin Diocesan officials had learnt about Father Payne from my guidance counsellor in school. By then, Belfast priest, Father Brendan Smyth had also been convicted and again the same pattern of cover up had left him free to rape and sexually abuse children long after he should have been stopped.
It was at that time, early 1998, that I first sought an independent inquiry into the handling of allegations of child sexual abuse against Catholic priests. Children were being sexually abused by priests already known to Catholic Church authorities to be people who should never have access to children.
The Taoiseach of the day, Mr Ahern, did not share my concerns, an inquiry of the type you suggest can only be held into matters of urgent public concern was his response. Just as shocking was the fact that his reply, moved into the public domain by me, was met with total silence the length and breadth of Ireland. The sexual abuse of children by known child molesters and rapists, not a matter of urgent public concern – shameful.
It only took another four years of good investigative journalism alongside revelation after revelation about how much Catholic bishops had known about the sexual abuse of children, before Government was forced to change its position in October 2002, following the broadcast of RTE’s Prime Time Special Cardinal Secrets, and a statutory Inquiry into the Archdiocese of Dublin was announced. Three and a half years was spent setting up the Inquiry. The Inquiry itself led to what we know now as the Murphy Report. By then we had also seen the publication of the Ferns and Ryan Reports and since then the Cloyne Report.
I was angered and saddened by the findings of these reports: The same tactics employed by Bishops for decades to knowingly, proactively conceal the sexual abuse of children in order to maintain secrecy, avoid scandal, protect the reputation of the Church, and preserve its assets.
And those tactics were not unique to the Catholic Church in Ireland. Much has being made of the 1962 and 2001 Vatican documents instructing Bishops around the world to conduct investigations into allegations of child sexual abuse in secret. But I believe that the similarity of actions of Bishops in Dioceses so far apart from each other, from Ferns to Philadelphia, from Dublin to Boston, from Manchester to Munich, demonstrate very convincingly that such practices were known about in essence if not in detail, at the highest level of Catholic Church hierarchy. This is not a problem of a few rogue Bishops. Nor is it a problem within the Catholic Church in Ireland alone.
So how has the Catholic Church responded - to the truth now being so widely known, a truth it fought so hard to hide? For me the response beggars belief to this very day and has added insult to injury.
Initially Catholic Bishops here in Ireland took some ownership of the cover up saying, in December 2009, that they were shamed by the extent of it and that it reflected a culture of cover up that existed throughout the Catholic Church in Ireland, though within days the spin had started and cover up became mismanagement, and management became failure of leadership.
In the Vatican, Pope Benedict talked about the importance of listening to victims while at the same time choosing to ignore us when we wrote to him a week before the Irish Bishops’ visit to the Vatican in early 2010. It was important to us that our views would be considered at that meeting and unlike the Bishops we were happy to publish our submission. At no time then or since has our correspondence ever been acknowledged and our views remain completely ignored.
Also in the Vatican, Secretary of State Cardinal Bertone stated that there is a relationship between paedophilia and homosexuality. This was nothing more than a reprehensible attempt to blame a small and marginalised group within society for the actions of priests who sexually abused children, in order to deflect attention away from the Church’s own role in concealing that abuse.
Secularism was also blamed, as was the media and loss of faith, one minute revelations of sexual abuse and cover up were being described as petty gossip, the next minute they were tantamount to the collective violence perpetrated by Christians on Jews over the centuries.
How different that response could, and should have looked.
To his credit Bishop Jim Moriarty got it right. I was very grateful to him for the content and tone of his resignation statement. He acknowledged that he should have challenged the prevailing culture that existed within the Archdiocese and apologised for failing to do so, this was very welcome. His acknowledgement that ‘the long struggle of survivors to be heard and respected by church authorities had revealed a culture within the Church that many would simply describe as unchristian’ was also very welcome.
If other members of the Catholic hierarchy had responded in this way things might look very different in the Catholic Church today …. Renewal must begin with accepting responsibility for the past.
Another part of our collective response to all we have learned is what we, as a society, do to ensure today’s and tomorrow’s children live in a safer world. The Catholic Church in Ireland has the National Board for Safeguarding Children, which I welcome. I also acknowledge and welcome the hard work that many people are engaged in at parish level in implementing the Safeguarding Children Guidelines, but I am concerned that implementation is reliant only on the good will of people. What happens where such good will doesn’t exist? And how seriously can we take Catholic Church leadership on child protection when such leadership remains littered with Bishops who caused the sexual abuse of children by their own actions or inactions?
I know I’m talking to you in the context of the Catholic Church but the debate about the safety, welfare, protection and rights of children is of course much wider.
We know only too well that the State is as capable of failing children as the Catholic Church is. We’ve had Reports into the deaths of children in the care of the State, reports about the absence of proper care for separated non-Irish national children, reports about the failure by the HSE and others to comply with Children First Guidelines, reports about children being left in abusive foster care situations even though serious concerns had been expressed by teachers and members of the public.
Part of my response in recent years, to all we have learned, was to join forces with people who advocate genuinely in the best interests of children, with no hidden agenda ........., to listen to the changes they felt were necessary if we, as a society, were to properly respond effectively to all we now know about past and present abuse, neglect and failure to protect children. I also took full advantage of any opportunity I could get to ensure that people in Leinster House were listening to our voices and formulating policy accordingly.
Thankfully there is a body of work underway by Government that was long overdue and it is refreshing to have a Minister for Children and Youth Affairs who is driving that work along as impressively as Frances Fitzgerald is.
In particular I welcome...
Putting the child protection guidance, Children First, on a statutory basis. This has been talked about for years and finally it is being done with publication of the legislation imminent. Safeguarding Children, which I mentioned earlier, is compliant with Children First Guidance and after the legislation is passed we will no longer rely on the good will of anyone to ensure implementation.
The Minister for Justice Alan Shatter is introducing legislation making it a criminal offence to withhold information about and arrestable offence having been committed upon a child or a vulnerable adult – all those acts of deliberate concealment of the sexual abuse of children will be a criminal offence if they are repeated ... and no exemption will, or should, be made for concealing information just because it was learned during the sacrament of confession.
Some people complain that there is too much focus on the Catholic Church with no consequences for others who have failed children just as badly. It should be noted that the HSE is to lose its management of Child and Family Support Services and those responsibilities are being transferred to the new Department of Children and Youth Affairs with, hopefully, proper lines of administrative, executive and political responsibility built into the legislaltion.
Properly enshrining the rights of children in our Constitution has also been talked about for many years, now we have a commitment from Government that it will definitely take place this year and it will be a stand-alone referendum. I very much hope the people of Ireland will give a resounding to yes to that referendum proposal when the time comes.
We need to radically enhance the monitoring and support of sex offenders living in the community, post conviction, the system, as it currently stands fails to monitor and support the offender as much as it fails to reassure the public ... and the Garda Vetting Bureau Bill seeks to address the need, amongst other things, to facilitate the passing on of soft information, as recommended by the Ferns Report 7 years ago.
Progress has been slow, but it is being made and we must never, ever, again allow any organisation, large or small, powerful or otherwise, to put self interest above the best interests of children and we must always listen to the voice of the children when we are taking decisions which affect them.
Thank you very much for your time and your attention .....
Monday, April 2, 2012
Sex Offenders
The Association of Garda Sergeants and Inspectors conference is today calling for convicted sex offenders to regularly supply Gardai with additional personal information, including photographs. The system of monitoring and support of sex offenders needs to be radically improved and Gardai having photographs of convicted offenders sounds like a very basic start.
Remember it was only last July that a Donegal caretaker, Michael Ferry, who returned to work in a school where he had previously sexually abused a child, was convicted for a second time for molesting and raping four boys at the same school, while he was subject to the conditions of the Sex Offenders' Register.
The monitoring and support of convicted sex offenders in Ireland is almost non-existent. Sex offenders who have served their sentences are generally released into the community without supervision, though some are under the supervision of the Probation and Welfare Service. The requirements of the Sex Offenders Act 2001 do not mean that there is any real supervision. ... and that’s not just my view, they are the words of Judge Yvonne Murphy in the Murphy Report.
There is an urgent need for changes to this system to be made ...
• There is no actual sex offenders’ register. Released offenders simply notify the Gardai of their intended residential address. A multi-agency approach to the support and monitoring of released offenders must be developed along with a more stringent regime of signing on procedures with regular personal visits to Garda stations by released offenders.
• All convicted sex offenders should be considered High Risk on release and should be monitored & supported accordingly. All such offenders should be subject to a Post Release Supervision Order which should be put in place at the time the offender is being released and not at the time of sentencing which is currently the case.
• Those responsible for monitoring sex offenders should have the powers and the resources to make regular unannounced visits to the homes of released sex offenders.
• Monitoring of sex offenders should include polygraph testing, electronic tagging, curfews and other restrictions, for example an offender who only ever abuses children after he/she has taken alcohol should have it as a condition of their release that they don’t consume alcohol.
• Parents and Guardians should be able to register a concern with authorities about any individual who has access to their children about whom they are genuinely worried and in some cases it should be possible for them to be told if such an individual is a known sex offender or not. This measure is already being rolled out in the UK, having being piloted to great effect over an eighteen month period. The pilot scheme in four counties saw one in ten calls to police uncover evidence of a criminal past. Out of 315 applications for information from concerned parents, details of 21 paedophiles were revealed, these were sex offenders known to the authorities who were putting themselves in a position of having access to children again, and they were stopped because those parents could register their concerns and access this informatiion.
Convicted sex offenders make up a very small proportion of all sex offenders but every effort must still be made to protect children from them.
Remember it was only last July that a Donegal caretaker, Michael Ferry, who returned to work in a school where he had previously sexually abused a child, was convicted for a second time for molesting and raping four boys at the same school, while he was subject to the conditions of the Sex Offenders' Register.
The monitoring and support of convicted sex offenders in Ireland is almost non-existent. Sex offenders who have served their sentences are generally released into the community without supervision, though some are under the supervision of the Probation and Welfare Service. The requirements of the Sex Offenders Act 2001 do not mean that there is any real supervision. ... and that’s not just my view, they are the words of Judge Yvonne Murphy in the Murphy Report.
There is an urgent need for changes to this system to be made ...
• There is no actual sex offenders’ register. Released offenders simply notify the Gardai of their intended residential address. A multi-agency approach to the support and monitoring of released offenders must be developed along with a more stringent regime of signing on procedures with regular personal visits to Garda stations by released offenders.
• All convicted sex offenders should be considered High Risk on release and should be monitored & supported accordingly. All such offenders should be subject to a Post Release Supervision Order which should be put in place at the time the offender is being released and not at the time of sentencing which is currently the case.
• Those responsible for monitoring sex offenders should have the powers and the resources to make regular unannounced visits to the homes of released sex offenders.
• Monitoring of sex offenders should include polygraph testing, electronic tagging, curfews and other restrictions, for example an offender who only ever abuses children after he/she has taken alcohol should have it as a condition of their release that they don’t consume alcohol.
• Parents and Guardians should be able to register a concern with authorities about any individual who has access to their children about whom they are genuinely worried and in some cases it should be possible for them to be told if such an individual is a known sex offender or not. This measure is already being rolled out in the UK, having being piloted to great effect over an eighteen month period. The pilot scheme in four counties saw one in ten calls to police uncover evidence of a criminal past. Out of 315 applications for information from concerned parents, details of 21 paedophiles were revealed, these were sex offenders known to the authorities who were putting themselves in a position of having access to children again, and they were stopped because those parents could register their concerns and access this informatiion.
Convicted sex offenders make up a very small proportion of all sex offenders but every effort must still be made to protect children from them.
Friday, March 30, 2012
Deputy Ruairí Quinn
Dail Debate on Ryan Report on the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse
12:00pm, 11th June 2009.
Deputy Ruairí Quinn:
As we all do, I have limited time available to speak, and no words of mine or of anybody else in the House can undo the damage, harm or hurt caused to and which continues for those people. However, the actions that we take can make some redress to them, their children and their children’s children. I appreciate the point made by the Taoiseach, which is contained in one of the recommendations, that we erect a monument containing the words of the apology that the Taoiseach uttered in May 1999 but I suggest we should go further. We should have a living monument dedicated to those people, some of whom are no longer with us, that contains their stories and memories and our records of abuse, both clerical and State, and inhuman treatment so that the walking wounded, emotionally and physically, who are the people who came to the gates of this assembly yesterday can be able to point to a permanent record of their hurt to explain in part to their children and to their children’s children why they, with their stolen childhoods, could not live full lives as adults.
My next point is more substantial and I am delighted the Taoiseach is here with his colleague and friend, the Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Batt O’Keeffe, because I have a serious set of allegations to make against both of them. The problem with the Watergate controversy was that the burglary was wrong but the cover-up was worse. We have compounded our criticism of the religious orders and the church in this regard and we have let free the horrendous record of the Department of Education and Science that continues to the present day. We have castigated in financial terms the regulators for the failure to regulate the banks but the Department of Education and Science has got away scot free in many respects and continues to do so.
I put it to the Minister that there is a continuing culture of deferment and obedience to the Catholic church and its religious orders in the Department of Education and Science that has continually frustrated getting answers to simple questions of which I will provide three examples. It is for the Minister to refute this and he knows from my persistent questioning that it is not for the want of trying on my part to establish facts free of prejudice. On 26 February I asked the Minister for Education and Science “if he [would] enter into talks with an organisation (details supplied) [CORI], some of whose members, as teaching orders, are the legal owners of many of the primary schools”. The answer I received was that he would not and that the information as to who owned what school of the 3,200 schools throughout the country was not readily available in an easily accessible format.
On 10 March I asked the Minister whether he would “identify by name, roll number, location and Roman Catholic diocese, each primary school in the ownership of a religious teaching order or a Roman Catholic bishop”. The reply stated that there are in excess of 3,200 primary schools in the country and my net point centres on the following paragraph of the reply:
Information relating to school site ownership and property details would have been received by my Department over a long number of years and the legal documents relating to the interest of the State in buildings constructed on sites not in the ownership of the State are generally held on individual files as distinct from a central database. Accordingly, the information requested by the Deputy is not readily available in a format that is readily retrievable.
This is what is happening on Marlborough Street and the Minister may spend much time in Cork but I wish he would spend more time there. On 28 May in another question I named the [587]18 congregations, which the Taoiseach met this week. I will read the second part of the reply I received as time does not permit me to read it out in full but the records are there. It states:
These schools are privately owned and as such the information sought by the Deputy is not readily available in a format that is readily retrievable [The Minister does not even change the text]. The legal documents relating to the interest of the State in buildings constructed on sites not in the ownership of the State are generally held on individual files as distinct from a central database.
Either officials in the Department are members of secret societies such as the Knights of St. Columbanus and Opus Dei and have taken it upon themselves to protect the interests of these clerical orders at this point in time in this year of 2009 or, alternatively, the Minister is politically incompetent and incapable of managing the Department of Education and Science. He went from February to last week saying that the information was not readily available.
The Taoiseach met with the same religious orders. Imagine what he could have said; imagine what power the Taoiseach could have had if he could have said to the 18 orders that, for example the Christian Brothers have 97 schools, paid for mostly by taxpayers through voluntary contributions and grants, and that the Sisters of Mercy and other orders together have perhaps 300 or 400 schools — I am guessing because these guys refuse to tell me.
The legal ownership of those schools should be transferred without any contribution and in return the schools should continue for the time being under the existing patronship arrangements until such time as we democratically and collectively decide how best to do it. We are the only country in Europe — including countries such as Catholic Spain, Catholic Italy and Catholic Austria — where the primary school system is controlled by private organisations. If one thinks they are not private one should examine the court decision on Louise O’Keeffe and how the State was not responsible for the abuse she received from a primary school teacher, who was not a religious person, but that the responsibility lies with the boards of management of the private organisations.
We have to deal with this problem and this is the way we start. The Taoiseach has asked the orders to return in two weeks with an inventory of their assets. The man sitting beside him knows what they are and he is refusing to tell me, a Deputy of this House. I do not believe the Minister, Deputy O’Keeffe, is a bad man. I do not believe he is a Catholic right-wing secret obscurantist but many of the people working for him on a permanent salary — he will be gone in a couple of years — most certainly are or else they are incompetent, lazy and destructive. He can take his choice as to what the explanation is but I have given him the facts. He and his Department are concealing from us, the citizens of the Republic, information on the nature and ownership of schools. I am unable to go into it but one of the replies I received was simply a lie; it suggested that legal protocols were in existence that prevented schools from being sold off. That is not the case for the vast majority of those schools, many of which are in built up areas and were built prior to 1960 when such protocols came into existence.
Build the monument and make it a living lasting voice of what we did. This was not some era of colonial exploitation; this was not the Anglo-Saxon invasion of the country; this is what we did to ourselves for the reasons Deputy Gilmore stated. We should have not just a monument but a living museum and a permanent reminder that never again can it happen and an explanation for those who were affected and their families as to why they were the way they were.
To learn for the future we need to take these schools and our entire primary school infrastructure into public ownership. We are paying for them and funding them. We need to get the management controls that are necessary to bring us into line with every other European coun[588]try. The Government has a golden opportunity; the value of 500 schools at €2 million or €3 million each is close to €1 billion. It will go a long way in the eyes of the public towards saying that we are sorry for what happened and for our consistent denial and refusal to recognise our responsibility. It would ensure that whoever is Minister for Education and Science in the future has rational control of the infrastructure to get the best productivity from it.
The Minister, Deputy Batt O’Keeffe, has a serious responsibility to either manage that Department in a modern and effective way or to root out the obstruction that is manifestly evident in the consistent replies I have received from him in the past year.
Acting Chairman:
I know the Deputy did not mean to use the word “lie”. I take it——
Deputy Ruairí Quinn:
I withdraw the word “lie” and say “inadvertently misled the House”.
12:00pm, 11th June 2009.
Deputy Ruairí Quinn:
As we all do, I have limited time available to speak, and no words of mine or of anybody else in the House can undo the damage, harm or hurt caused to and which continues for those people. However, the actions that we take can make some redress to them, their children and their children’s children. I appreciate the point made by the Taoiseach, which is contained in one of the recommendations, that we erect a monument containing the words of the apology that the Taoiseach uttered in May 1999 but I suggest we should go further. We should have a living monument dedicated to those people, some of whom are no longer with us, that contains their stories and memories and our records of abuse, both clerical and State, and inhuman treatment so that the walking wounded, emotionally and physically, who are the people who came to the gates of this assembly yesterday can be able to point to a permanent record of their hurt to explain in part to their children and to their children’s children why they, with their stolen childhoods, could not live full lives as adults.
My next point is more substantial and I am delighted the Taoiseach is here with his colleague and friend, the Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Batt O’Keeffe, because I have a serious set of allegations to make against both of them. The problem with the Watergate controversy was that the burglary was wrong but the cover-up was worse. We have compounded our criticism of the religious orders and the church in this regard and we have let free the horrendous record of the Department of Education and Science that continues to the present day. We have castigated in financial terms the regulators for the failure to regulate the banks but the Department of Education and Science has got away scot free in many respects and continues to do so.
I put it to the Minister that there is a continuing culture of deferment and obedience to the Catholic church and its religious orders in the Department of Education and Science that has continually frustrated getting answers to simple questions of which I will provide three examples. It is for the Minister to refute this and he knows from my persistent questioning that it is not for the want of trying on my part to establish facts free of prejudice. On 26 February I asked the Minister for Education and Science “if he [would] enter into talks with an organisation (details supplied) [CORI], some of whose members, as teaching orders, are the legal owners of many of the primary schools”. The answer I received was that he would not and that the information as to who owned what school of the 3,200 schools throughout the country was not readily available in an easily accessible format.
On 10 March I asked the Minister whether he would “identify by name, roll number, location and Roman Catholic diocese, each primary school in the ownership of a religious teaching order or a Roman Catholic bishop”. The reply stated that there are in excess of 3,200 primary schools in the country and my net point centres on the following paragraph of the reply:
Information relating to school site ownership and property details would have been received by my Department over a long number of years and the legal documents relating to the interest of the State in buildings constructed on sites not in the ownership of the State are generally held on individual files as distinct from a central database. Accordingly, the information requested by the Deputy is not readily available in a format that is readily retrievable.
This is what is happening on Marlborough Street and the Minister may spend much time in Cork but I wish he would spend more time there. On 28 May in another question I named the [587]18 congregations, which the Taoiseach met this week. I will read the second part of the reply I received as time does not permit me to read it out in full but the records are there. It states:
These schools are privately owned and as such the information sought by the Deputy is not readily available in a format that is readily retrievable [The Minister does not even change the text]. The legal documents relating to the interest of the State in buildings constructed on sites not in the ownership of the State are generally held on individual files as distinct from a central database.
Either officials in the Department are members of secret societies such as the Knights of St. Columbanus and Opus Dei and have taken it upon themselves to protect the interests of these clerical orders at this point in time in this year of 2009 or, alternatively, the Minister is politically incompetent and incapable of managing the Department of Education and Science. He went from February to last week saying that the information was not readily available.
The Taoiseach met with the same religious orders. Imagine what he could have said; imagine what power the Taoiseach could have had if he could have said to the 18 orders that, for example the Christian Brothers have 97 schools, paid for mostly by taxpayers through voluntary contributions and grants, and that the Sisters of Mercy and other orders together have perhaps 300 or 400 schools — I am guessing because these guys refuse to tell me.
The legal ownership of those schools should be transferred without any contribution and in return the schools should continue for the time being under the existing patronship arrangements until such time as we democratically and collectively decide how best to do it. We are the only country in Europe — including countries such as Catholic Spain, Catholic Italy and Catholic Austria — where the primary school system is controlled by private organisations. If one thinks they are not private one should examine the court decision on Louise O’Keeffe and how the State was not responsible for the abuse she received from a primary school teacher, who was not a religious person, but that the responsibility lies with the boards of management of the private organisations.
We have to deal with this problem and this is the way we start. The Taoiseach has asked the orders to return in two weeks with an inventory of their assets. The man sitting beside him knows what they are and he is refusing to tell me, a Deputy of this House. I do not believe the Minister, Deputy O’Keeffe, is a bad man. I do not believe he is a Catholic right-wing secret obscurantist but many of the people working for him on a permanent salary — he will be gone in a couple of years — most certainly are or else they are incompetent, lazy and destructive. He can take his choice as to what the explanation is but I have given him the facts. He and his Department are concealing from us, the citizens of the Republic, information on the nature and ownership of schools. I am unable to go into it but one of the replies I received was simply a lie; it suggested that legal protocols were in existence that prevented schools from being sold off. That is not the case for the vast majority of those schools, many of which are in built up areas and were built prior to 1960 when such protocols came into existence.
Build the monument and make it a living lasting voice of what we did. This was not some era of colonial exploitation; this was not the Anglo-Saxon invasion of the country; this is what we did to ourselves for the reasons Deputy Gilmore stated. We should have not just a monument but a living museum and a permanent reminder that never again can it happen and an explanation for those who were affected and their families as to why they were the way they were.
To learn for the future we need to take these schools and our entire primary school infrastructure into public ownership. We are paying for them and funding them. We need to get the management controls that are necessary to bring us into line with every other European coun[588]try. The Government has a golden opportunity; the value of 500 schools at €2 million or €3 million each is close to €1 billion. It will go a long way in the eyes of the public towards saying that we are sorry for what happened and for our consistent denial and refusal to recognise our responsibility. It would ensure that whoever is Minister for Education and Science in the future has rational control of the infrastructure to get the best productivity from it.
The Minister, Deputy Batt O’Keeffe, has a serious responsibility to either manage that Department in a modern and effective way or to root out the obstruction that is manifestly evident in the consistent replies I have received from him in the past year.
Acting Chairman:
I know the Deputy did not mean to use the word “lie”. I take it——
Deputy Ruairí Quinn:
I withdraw the word “lie” and say “inadvertently misled the House”.
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
APOSTOLIC VISITATION REPORT
I would like to take the opportunity to respond briefly to the Findings of the Apostolic Visitation in Ireland.
The reasons given by the Vatican for this Visitation were:
• To offer assistance to the Bishops, clergy, religious and lay faithful as they seek to respond adequately to the situation caused by the tragic cases of abuse perpetrated by priests and religious upon minors.
• To contribute to the desired spiritual and moral renewal that is already being vigorously pursued by the Church in Ireland.
• To explore more deeply questions concerning the handling of cases of abuse and the assistance owed to the victims.
• To monitor the effectiveness of and seek possible improvements to the current procedures for preventing abuse.
I did not participate in this exercise because I did not believe it would serve any credible purpose. I was of the view that instead it would be used by the Vatican to maintain the pretence that the sexual abuse of children by Catholic priests and the subsequent cover up of that abuse by Catholic Bishops was an Irish problem which it knew nothing about, and this is simply not true. Catholic Bishops & Cardinals have been concealing the sexual abuse of children for decades from one side of the world to the other and it is not believable that this was not known in the Vatican.
With this Summary Report the Vatican has failed yet again to acknowledge and take responsibility for its role in facilitating a culture of cover up which has caused the sexual abuse of so many children. Continued calls for ‘forgiveness’ are meaningless in this context.
The Summary Report also urges Irish Catholic Bishops to spend more time listening to victims. Members of the Catholic Hierarchy in Ireland and in the Vatican have repeatedly disrespected and ignored the voices and views of those who have been abused and I have no reason to believe that has, or will, change.
I said in October 2010 that the Apostolic Visitation is nothing more than self-serving window-dressing nonsense, and nothing I’ve read today has changed my mind.
END 20/03/2012
The reasons given by the Vatican for this Visitation were:
• To offer assistance to the Bishops, clergy, religious and lay faithful as they seek to respond adequately to the situation caused by the tragic cases of abuse perpetrated by priests and religious upon minors.
• To contribute to the desired spiritual and moral renewal that is already being vigorously pursued by the Church in Ireland.
• To explore more deeply questions concerning the handling of cases of abuse and the assistance owed to the victims.
• To monitor the effectiveness of and seek possible improvements to the current procedures for preventing abuse.
I did not participate in this exercise because I did not believe it would serve any credible purpose. I was of the view that instead it would be used by the Vatican to maintain the pretence that the sexual abuse of children by Catholic priests and the subsequent cover up of that abuse by Catholic Bishops was an Irish problem which it knew nothing about, and this is simply not true. Catholic Bishops & Cardinals have been concealing the sexual abuse of children for decades from one side of the world to the other and it is not believable that this was not known in the Vatican.
With this Summary Report the Vatican has failed yet again to acknowledge and take responsibility for its role in facilitating a culture of cover up which has caused the sexual abuse of so many children. Continued calls for ‘forgiveness’ are meaningless in this context.
The Summary Report also urges Irish Catholic Bishops to spend more time listening to victims. Members of the Catholic Hierarchy in Ireland and in the Vatican have repeatedly disrespected and ignored the voices and views of those who have been abused and I have no reason to believe that has, or will, change.
I said in October 2010 that the Apostolic Visitation is nothing more than self-serving window-dressing nonsense, and nothing I’ve read today has changed my mind.
END 20/03/2012
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
Mary Raftery
I wish to express my deep sadness today on hearing of the death of Mary Raftery.
Mary was instrumental in helping many of us as we sought to expose the truth about what the Catholic Church and others knew about the sexual abuse of children by Catholic priests in Ireland. Mary understood that the Catholic Church’s concealment of the sexual abuse of children was systemic but that it could best be exposed by helping survivors share personal experience and through her work provided a way for some of us to do that.
Mary Raftery has contributed hugely to helping survivors receive some semblance of justice: The Ryan and Murphy Reports are now part of the public record of this country and will remain there and continue to inform us for many years. For too many survivors, having those Reports on the public record is the only justice they have ever received.
I will be forever grateful to Mary for all she has done to help shed a light where it wasn’t wanted and I offer my condolences to her family, friends and loved ones.
END 10/01/2012
Mary was instrumental in helping many of us as we sought to expose the truth about what the Catholic Church and others knew about the sexual abuse of children by Catholic priests in Ireland. Mary understood that the Catholic Church’s concealment of the sexual abuse of children was systemic but that it could best be exposed by helping survivors share personal experience and through her work provided a way for some of us to do that.
Mary Raftery has contributed hugely to helping survivors receive some semblance of justice: The Ryan and Murphy Reports are now part of the public record of this country and will remain there and continue to inform us for many years. For too many survivors, having those Reports on the public record is the only justice they have ever received.
I will be forever grateful to Mary for all she has done to help shed a light where it wasn’t wanted and I offer my condolences to her family, friends and loved ones.
END 10/01/2012
Thursday, December 22, 2011
The Optimist V The Pessimist
The Optimist V The Pessimist
A family had twin boys whose only resemblance to each other was their looks. If one felt it was too hot, the other thought it was too cold. If one said the TV was too loud, the other claimed the volume needed to be turned up. Opposite in every way, one was an eternal optimist, the other a doom and gloom pessimist.
Just to see what would happen, on the twins' birthday their father loaded the pessimist's room with every imaginable toy and game. The optimist's room he loaded with horse manure.
That night the father passed by the pessimist's room and found him sitting amid his new gifts crying bitterly.
"Why are you crying?" the father asked.
"Because my friends will be jealous, I'll have to read all these instructions before I can do anything with this stuff, I'll constantly need batteries, and my toys will eventually get broken." answered the pessimist twin.
Passing the optimist twin's room, the father found him dancing for joy in the pile of manure. "What are you so happy about?" he asked.
To which his optimist twin replied, "There's got to be a pony in here somewhere!"
A family had twin boys whose only resemblance to each other was their looks. If one felt it was too hot, the other thought it was too cold. If one said the TV was too loud, the other claimed the volume needed to be turned up. Opposite in every way, one was an eternal optimist, the other a doom and gloom pessimist.
Just to see what would happen, on the twins' birthday their father loaded the pessimist's room with every imaginable toy and game. The optimist's room he loaded with horse manure.
That night the father passed by the pessimist's room and found him sitting amid his new gifts crying bitterly.
"Why are you crying?" the father asked.
"Because my friends will be jealous, I'll have to read all these instructions before I can do anything with this stuff, I'll constantly need batteries, and my toys will eventually get broken." answered the pessimist twin.
Passing the optimist twin's room, the father found him dancing for joy in the pile of manure. "What are you so happy about?" he asked.
To which his optimist twin replied, "There's got to be a pony in here somewhere!"
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Child Sexual Abuse, Catholic Priests and Confession.
At the end of October this year, psychotherapist and social worker Dr Marie Keenan published an analysis of child sexual abuse within the Catholic Church. In the book, Child Sexual Abuse and the Catholic Church (Oxford University Press, New York) - Dr Keenan identifies the problem of child sexual abuse as not just within the individual psychology of the perpetrators, but also within the very makeup of the priesthood and the organisational structures of the Catholic Church. Some may agree, or not.
I was looking forward to reading this book as it had promised to let us hear the voices of some of the priests who had sexually abused children and those bishops who had covered up for them. On both counts the book disappoints, but I was struck by one thing: eight out of the nine offending priests, who participated in Dr Keenan’s research, had disclosed their sexual abuse of children in confession.
The extracts from Chapter 8 below make up most of what the priests and Dr Keenan had to say on the subject matter. I was already steadfast in my belief that the Catholic Church should not be granted any exemption from new child protection legislation that the Irish Government is planning to publish in the coming months, this only serves to reinforce that belief.
Priest:
The only ones who would have sensed what I was going through were my confessors – they were carefully selected by me, and time and time again I recounted my temptations and falls, my scruples and shame. They after all were bound to a strict code of secrecy. I was known personally to them all. They were my lifelines.
Dr Keenan:
The word ‘secrecy’ is interesting in this man’s account. For all of the clerical perpetrators, the confession made bearable what was for them, at times, a complex site of paradox, contradiction, and ambiguity in which their self identity and performance were at odds, and the performance of integrity was severely undermined.
The anonymity and confidentiality of the confessional became an important avenue for disclosure of sexual and emotional distress and ultimately for disclosure of sexual offending. Eight of them disclosed their sexual offending in the confessional. The confessional became a space for them between the ideal and the reality. It was a secret conversational space, not only of forgiveness but also of ‘externalising’ the issues ‘in safety’.
Priest:
After each abusive occurrence I felt full of guilt and at the earliest opportunity I sought to confess and receive absolution. While this was well intentioned there is a sense in which it was a mechanical process, but it effected a degree of relief and a feeling of a new beginning. There was always a resolution that it would not occur again – and yet experience should have told me that that was an unrealistic purpose of amendment given my awareness of my inclinations and that opportunity was frequently presented.
There were times of guilt, shame, and fear that I would get caught but I used confession to clean the slate. I minimised everything in this area...convincing myself that I would never do it again, especially after confession. It seemed to ease my conscience that I was truly making an effort to change and to stop...and going to confession and being able to couch it such a way that you know I didn’t have to give the full story, until one day towards perhaps the second last abuse I went to confession and this man absolutely just went for me...he just said to me, ’you know what you are doing is not alone morally wrong, but it is a criminal act’.
In all the times I confessed to abusing a minor I can only remember one occasion when I got a reprimand or advice not to do this again. In a strange way the sacramental confession let us off the hook rather lightly, and perhaps allowed us to realise what was actually happening...Perhaps I minimised in my accounts, but I do not think so. I certainly agonised as to how to present the abuse, and maybe the language used probably veiled the horror of the action. It was not open denial, but maybe it was not unadulterated truth either. The practice allowed us to feel that the disapproval and shame we experienced in telling was only short-lived and never likely to be discussed anywhere except there. Not confronted adequately we experienced only a short duration of guilt and no sense of responsibility for how we hurt others, only the alleviation of our own guilt and shame.
Dr Keenan:
Receiving confession played a role in easing the men’s conscience in coping with the moral dilemmas following episodes of abusing, and it provided a site of respite from guilt. For some of the men it also helped them think that they were making an effort to change. As the men oscillated between a sense of ‘self’ and ‘false-self’ that at times undermined their stability and sense of security, the confessional became a site that provided respite from such a conflicted existence.
The narratives show that their belief in God sustained the participants through some difficult times. They believed that God, who was aware they were struggling to be good, would love them in spite of their weaknesses if they sought forgiveness, were genuinely remorseful, and did their best not to abuse again. God was always available in confession. The men saw themselves as sinners, and they tried to repent. God and the confessional provided the key site of support and hope for them, especially when they were abusing boys. However, the narratives also give rise to some important observations regarding the function of confession. It is notable that only one confessor on one occasion, among the many times that the men disclosed their abusive behaviour in confession, pointed out the criminal nature of the sexual abuse. The very process of confession itself might therefore be seen as having enabled the abuse to continue, not only in how the men used the secrecy and safety of the confessional space to resolve the issues of guilt, but also in the fact that within the walls of the confession, the problem of the sexual abuse of children was contained. While the ‘Catechism of the Catholic Church’ (1994) makes clear that the seal is a fundamental aspect of the theology of the sacrament of confession, and it is not the function of the confessor to judge the confessant, nonetheless no pathway existed for this important information of abuse by clergy, which was emerging in the confessional, to flow back into the system, to alert the Church hierarchy to a growing problem. The fact that the problem was individualised at the level of the confessional is an important feature of abuse by clergy.
I was looking forward to reading this book as it had promised to let us hear the voices of some of the priests who had sexually abused children and those bishops who had covered up for them. On both counts the book disappoints, but I was struck by one thing: eight out of the nine offending priests, who participated in Dr Keenan’s research, had disclosed their sexual abuse of children in confession.
The extracts from Chapter 8 below make up most of what the priests and Dr Keenan had to say on the subject matter. I was already steadfast in my belief that the Catholic Church should not be granted any exemption from new child protection legislation that the Irish Government is planning to publish in the coming months, this only serves to reinforce that belief.
Priest:
The only ones who would have sensed what I was going through were my confessors – they were carefully selected by me, and time and time again I recounted my temptations and falls, my scruples and shame. They after all were bound to a strict code of secrecy. I was known personally to them all. They were my lifelines.
Dr Keenan:
The word ‘secrecy’ is interesting in this man’s account. For all of the clerical perpetrators, the confession made bearable what was for them, at times, a complex site of paradox, contradiction, and ambiguity in which their self identity and performance were at odds, and the performance of integrity was severely undermined.
The anonymity and confidentiality of the confessional became an important avenue for disclosure of sexual and emotional distress and ultimately for disclosure of sexual offending. Eight of them disclosed their sexual offending in the confessional. The confessional became a space for them between the ideal and the reality. It was a secret conversational space, not only of forgiveness but also of ‘externalising’ the issues ‘in safety’.
Priest:
After each abusive occurrence I felt full of guilt and at the earliest opportunity I sought to confess and receive absolution. While this was well intentioned there is a sense in which it was a mechanical process, but it effected a degree of relief and a feeling of a new beginning. There was always a resolution that it would not occur again – and yet experience should have told me that that was an unrealistic purpose of amendment given my awareness of my inclinations and that opportunity was frequently presented.
There were times of guilt, shame, and fear that I would get caught but I used confession to clean the slate. I minimised everything in this area...convincing myself that I would never do it again, especially after confession. It seemed to ease my conscience that I was truly making an effort to change and to stop...and going to confession and being able to couch it such a way that you know I didn’t have to give the full story, until one day towards perhaps the second last abuse I went to confession and this man absolutely just went for me...he just said to me, ’you know what you are doing is not alone morally wrong, but it is a criminal act’.
In all the times I confessed to abusing a minor I can only remember one occasion when I got a reprimand or advice not to do this again. In a strange way the sacramental confession let us off the hook rather lightly, and perhaps allowed us to realise what was actually happening...Perhaps I minimised in my accounts, but I do not think so. I certainly agonised as to how to present the abuse, and maybe the language used probably veiled the horror of the action. It was not open denial, but maybe it was not unadulterated truth either. The practice allowed us to feel that the disapproval and shame we experienced in telling was only short-lived and never likely to be discussed anywhere except there. Not confronted adequately we experienced only a short duration of guilt and no sense of responsibility for how we hurt others, only the alleviation of our own guilt and shame.
Dr Keenan:
Receiving confession played a role in easing the men’s conscience in coping with the moral dilemmas following episodes of abusing, and it provided a site of respite from guilt. For some of the men it also helped them think that they were making an effort to change. As the men oscillated between a sense of ‘self’ and ‘false-self’ that at times undermined their stability and sense of security, the confessional became a site that provided respite from such a conflicted existence.
The narratives show that their belief in God sustained the participants through some difficult times. They believed that God, who was aware they were struggling to be good, would love them in spite of their weaknesses if they sought forgiveness, were genuinely remorseful, and did their best not to abuse again. God was always available in confession. The men saw themselves as sinners, and they tried to repent. God and the confessional provided the key site of support and hope for them, especially when they were abusing boys. However, the narratives also give rise to some important observations regarding the function of confession. It is notable that only one confessor on one occasion, among the many times that the men disclosed their abusive behaviour in confession, pointed out the criminal nature of the sexual abuse. The very process of confession itself might therefore be seen as having enabled the abuse to continue, not only in how the men used the secrecy and safety of the confessional space to resolve the issues of guilt, but also in the fact that within the walls of the confession, the problem of the sexual abuse of children was contained. While the ‘Catechism of the Catholic Church’ (1994) makes clear that the seal is a fundamental aspect of the theology of the sacrament of confession, and it is not the function of the confessor to judge the confessant, nonetheless no pathway existed for this important information of abuse by clergy, which was emerging in the confessional, to flow back into the system, to alert the Church hierarchy to a growing problem. The fact that the problem was individualised at the level of the confessional is an important feature of abuse by clergy.
Thursday, October 20, 2011
Altar Boy, A Story Of Life After Abuse,
Altar Boy, A Story Of Life After Abuse, by Andrew Madden
The Kindle edition of Altar Boy is now available here http://amzn.to/paCkdG
[Kindle Edition for Kindle, iPad, iPhone, Blackberry, Android devices, PC, and Mac.]
‘Although I still carry many of the effects of child abuse I no longer consider myself a victim. I’ve done something about it. I’ve turned it around.’
Becoming an altar boy was Andrew Madden's first step toward realising his dream of becoming a priest. It was brilliant – getting to go behind the scenes in a busy parish church, helping on the altar in front of everyone – and he couldn’t wait to be grown up and saying Mass himself. But the day Andrew was molested by his favourite priest, Father Ivan Payne, his love of the Catholic Church was poisoned. Father’s Payne’s abuse lasted for three years, until Andrew was fifteen. But its impact went on and on. Andrew lost direction. He lost self-belief. He lost the capacity to have loving sex. And he lost himself in drink.
In the early '90s Andrew reached a financial settlement with Father Payne. He would go on to become the first Irish victim of sexual abuse by a priest to go public with his story. Altar Boy is the story behind that story.
Altar Boy is a candid, and sometimes searing, account of how abuse can affect a life. It is an articulate, challenging and often damning assessment of the behaviour of the Irish Catholic Church. And it is a story of hope: Andrew Madden’s calm and humane consideration of his own life - and Father Payne’s - shows that victims don’t have to remain victims.
The Kindle edition of Altar Boy is now available here http://amzn.to/paCkdG
[Kindle Edition for Kindle, iPad, iPhone, Blackberry, Android devices, PC, and Mac.]
‘Although I still carry many of the effects of child abuse I no longer consider myself a victim. I’ve done something about it. I’ve turned it around.’
Becoming an altar boy was Andrew Madden's first step toward realising his dream of becoming a priest. It was brilliant – getting to go behind the scenes in a busy parish church, helping on the altar in front of everyone – and he couldn’t wait to be grown up and saying Mass himself. But the day Andrew was molested by his favourite priest, Father Ivan Payne, his love of the Catholic Church was poisoned. Father’s Payne’s abuse lasted for three years, until Andrew was fifteen. But its impact went on and on. Andrew lost direction. He lost self-belief. He lost the capacity to have loving sex. And he lost himself in drink.
In the early '90s Andrew reached a financial settlement with Father Payne. He would go on to become the first Irish victim of sexual abuse by a priest to go public with his story. Altar Boy is the story behind that story.
Altar Boy is a candid, and sometimes searing, account of how abuse can affect a life. It is an articulate, challenging and often damning assessment of the behaviour of the Irish Catholic Church. And it is a story of hope: Andrew Madden’s calm and humane consideration of his own life - and Father Payne’s - shows that victims don’t have to remain victims.
Friday, September 30, 2011
STAY SAFE and SPHE Programmes
From today, teaching of the Stay Safe Programme in Ireland's 3,300 primary schools becomes mandatory. At least 80% of schools had already been teaching the Stay Safe Programme which is great, but nothing less than 100% compliance is acceptable.
Here is some information on the Stay Safe Programme and also the SPHE (Social Personl Health Education) Programme for secondary schools along with some recommendations.
THE STAY SAFE PROGRAMME
The Stay Safe Programme is a personal safety skills programme for primary schools - both mainstream and special. Its overall objective is to prevent child abuse, bullying and other forms of victimisation. There are 5 modules:
Feeling Safe/Unsafe
Bullying
Touches
Secrets and Telling
Strangers.
Implementation:
Senior Infants 9 lessons 20 minutes each
1st/2nd 9 lessons 30 minutes each
3rd/4th 9 lessons 30 minutes each
5th/6th 5 lessons 30 minutes each
It's recommended that lessons are taught at the rate of one per week. This programme is mandatory as of today 30 September 2011.
STAYSAFE/SPHE (Social Personal Health Education)
Social, Personal and Health Education, as part of the curriculum, supports the personal development, health and well-being of young people and helps them create and maintain supportive relationships. Social, Personal and Health Education in Post-Primary schools is a programme for students in the Junior/Senior Cycle and builds on the experience of all children at Primary level.
There are 10 modules at Junior Cycle:
Belonging and Integrating
Self-management: A sense of purpose
Communication Skills
Physical Health
Friendships
Relationships and Sexuality
Emotional Health
Influences and Decisions
Substance Use
Personal Safety
Implementation:
All mandatory, 1 class per week.
There are 5 modules at Senior Cycle:
Relationships & Sexuality Education (RSE)
Substance Use
Mental Health
Gender Studies
Physical Activity and Nutrition
Implementation:
RSE is only module which is mandatory. 6 classes per year is mandatory minimum.
Although RSE is mandatory, parents do have the right to withdraw their children from this module.
Recommendations
1. There should be a module in the SPHE programme dedicated specifically to safety, welfare and protection of children at post-primary (as a continuation of the Stay Safe programme at primary level). There is a module on Personal Safety (Junior Cycle) but it does not include child protection issues etc. This module should:
i. inform young people about legal issues re sexual behaviour, consent and what care means.
ii. inform young people about what is appropriate and inappropriate care from a care-giver.
iii. increase young people’s awareness of self- protective skills and abuse.
Evaluation should be built into this module to assess knowledge and skills before and after the lessons. This new module is needed in order to ensure that students who may be withdrawn by parents from RSE still receive the information about protecting themselves.
2. All SPHE Modules should be introduced at senior cycle as a matter of priority.
3. SPHE should be allocated 2 classes per week from First Year to Senior Cycle.
4. Children’s knowledge of SPHE should be assessed by means of a written evaluation and an interview (there is assessment of every other subject on the curriculum).
5. SPHE should be viewed as a specialist area like Guidance & Counselling. Not everyone is suited to teach this subject and yet in many cases teachers find SPHE on their timetables without having agreed to teach this subject. In order to be accepted on to a Guidance and Counselling course, applicants are required to undergo a rigorous interview and personality test. Given the nature of Social Personal & Health Education, there should be similar requirements of SPHE teachers. All teachers should receive a basic SPHE pre-service training as all teachers are involved in social and personal education of young people. A more specialised training should be given to those teachers who will be delivering SPHE as a curricular area.
Here is some information on the Stay Safe Programme and also the SPHE (Social Personl Health Education) Programme for secondary schools along with some recommendations.
THE STAY SAFE PROGRAMME
The Stay Safe Programme is a personal safety skills programme for primary schools - both mainstream and special. Its overall objective is to prevent child abuse, bullying and other forms of victimisation. There are 5 modules:
Feeling Safe/Unsafe
Bullying
Touches
Secrets and Telling
Strangers.
Implementation:
Senior Infants 9 lessons 20 minutes each
1st/2nd 9 lessons 30 minutes each
3rd/4th 9 lessons 30 minutes each
5th/6th 5 lessons 30 minutes each
It's recommended that lessons are taught at the rate of one per week. This programme is mandatory as of today 30 September 2011.
STAYSAFE/SPHE (Social Personal Health Education)
Social, Personal and Health Education, as part of the curriculum, supports the personal development, health and well-being of young people and helps them create and maintain supportive relationships. Social, Personal and Health Education in Post-Primary schools is a programme for students in the Junior/Senior Cycle and builds on the experience of all children at Primary level.
There are 10 modules at Junior Cycle:
Belonging and Integrating
Self-management: A sense of purpose
Communication Skills
Physical Health
Friendships
Relationships and Sexuality
Emotional Health
Influences and Decisions
Substance Use
Personal Safety
Implementation:
All mandatory, 1 class per week.
There are 5 modules at Senior Cycle:
Relationships & Sexuality Education (RSE)
Substance Use
Mental Health
Gender Studies
Physical Activity and Nutrition
Implementation:
RSE is only module which is mandatory. 6 classes per year is mandatory minimum.
Although RSE is mandatory, parents do have the right to withdraw their children from this module.
Recommendations
1. There should be a module in the SPHE programme dedicated specifically to safety, welfare and protection of children at post-primary (as a continuation of the Stay Safe programme at primary level). There is a module on Personal Safety (Junior Cycle) but it does not include child protection issues etc. This module should:
i. inform young people about legal issues re sexual behaviour, consent and what care means.
ii. inform young people about what is appropriate and inappropriate care from a care-giver.
iii. increase young people’s awareness of self- protective skills and abuse.
Evaluation should be built into this module to assess knowledge and skills before and after the lessons. This new module is needed in order to ensure that students who may be withdrawn by parents from RSE still receive the information about protecting themselves.
2. All SPHE Modules should be introduced at senior cycle as a matter of priority.
3. SPHE should be allocated 2 classes per week from First Year to Senior Cycle.
4. Children’s knowledge of SPHE should be assessed by means of a written evaluation and an interview (there is assessment of every other subject on the curriculum).
5. SPHE should be viewed as a specialist area like Guidance & Counselling. Not everyone is suited to teach this subject and yet in many cases teachers find SPHE on their timetables without having agreed to teach this subject. In order to be accepted on to a Guidance and Counselling course, applicants are required to undergo a rigorous interview and personality test. Given the nature of Social Personal & Health Education, there should be similar requirements of SPHE teachers. All teachers should receive a basic SPHE pre-service training as all teachers are involved in social and personal education of young people. A more specialised training should be given to those teachers who will be delivering SPHE as a curricular area.
Monday, September 5, 2011
Opinion Piece Irish Independent 05/09/2011
Though it comes as no surprise, the statement from the Holy See this weekend is indeed a technical legalistic carefully crafted document which seeks to absolve the Cardinals and Bishops of the Vatican of any responsibility for the cover up of the sexual abuse of children by Catholic priests. That cover up of course didn’t just occur in Cloyne. Or Dublin. That culture of cover up, despite its horrendous consequences, is typical of a culture of cover up that existed throughout the Catholic Church in Ireland for decades. And not just in Ireland of course.
A grand jury investigation into Catholic Archdiocese of Philadelphia reported in 2005 that the strategies employed by Catholic hierarchy there to cover up the sexual abuse of children were so similar in nature to tactics reported from other dioceses around the United States that it amounted to the Catholic Church having employed well-orchestrated strategies for decades and in all parts of the United States to keep abusing priests in ministry while minimising the risk of scandal or legal liability.
There have been similar reports too from many European countries over the last few years, including from Germany where Pope Benedict, as Archbishop of Munich, covered up for a priest in 1980. Sadly, as is often the case when abusers are protected, that priest went on to sexually abuse again and was eventually convicted.
In addition to the commonality of practice Cardinals and Bishops engaged in to cover up known child sexual abuse and protect the abusers, there are the 1962 and 2001 Vatican documents instructing Bishops around the world to conduct investigations into allegations of child sexual abuse in secret.
In addition, in respect of Ireland, there is the 1997 letter from the Congregation of the Clergy in the Vatican to the Irish Catholic Bishops which makes it very clear that reporting of any suspected sexual abuse of children to civil authorities gives rise to serious reservations of a canonical nature and that the procedures established by the Code of Canon Law must instead be meticulously followed. The Holy See’s insistence in its statement this weekend that that letter did not serve to deter any bishops from reporting of allegations to civil authorities is simply not true. And no amount of dishonest spin changes that fact.
Though it was clearly wrong for the Vatican to attempt to deter members of the Irish Catholic hierarchy from reporting to civil authorities they really needn’t have bothered because what was newly revealed in the Holy See statement was the fact that Irish Catholic Bishops didn’t take the child protection guidelines any more seriously than the Vatican did in the first place. We are told that Cardinals Daly and Connell clearly understood the difference between a document of the Irish Bishops’ Conference and a document of the Irish Catholic Bishops’ Advisory Committee on Child Sexual Abuse by Priests and Religious: they can ignore the latter.
Disingenuous of them not to have made that clear to the rest of us in 1996 when they deliberately gave the impression that from then on, in all cases where it was known or suspected that the sexual abuse of a child had taken place, they would report it to the civil authorities.
And now, instead of a Catholic hierarchy here and in the Vatican explaining to us why anyone should ever believe a word they say ever again, or ever trust them on the issue of child protection, they seem to think the duly elected leader of our country now owes them an explanation for some of the comments he made during his speech in the Dail following publication of the Cloyne Report.
In his speech Taoiseach Enda Kenny spoke of an attempt by the Holy See to frustrate an Inquiry in a sovereign, democratic republic as little as three years ago. I think the Taoiseach was right to articulate the anger so many people in Ireland felt on hearing not only about Vatican and Papal Nuncio non-cooperation with the Dublin and Cloyne inquiries but also our anger at attempts made by the Vatican to get the Irish Government to instruct the Murphy Inquiry on how it should approach the Vatican during the course of that Inquiry. Non-cooperation with an Inquiry is an act of frustration of that Inquiry.
It should also be remembered that the Cloyne Report tells that there was no attempt to implement child protection guidelines in that Diocese until 2008, despite there being a requirement within the State’s child protection guidelines to do so. That too was an unacceptable frustration of attempts in this country, to advance child protection.
Catholic bishops are owed nothing. They should consider themselves lucky that the only reason many of them are not behind bars is because the disgusting and unforgiveable acts they engaged in to conceal known child sexual abuse and protect abusers were not a criminal offence at the time.
Andrew Madden
END 05/09/11
A grand jury investigation into Catholic Archdiocese of Philadelphia reported in 2005 that the strategies employed by Catholic hierarchy there to cover up the sexual abuse of children were so similar in nature to tactics reported from other dioceses around the United States that it amounted to the Catholic Church having employed well-orchestrated strategies for decades and in all parts of the United States to keep abusing priests in ministry while minimising the risk of scandal or legal liability.
There have been similar reports too from many European countries over the last few years, including from Germany where Pope Benedict, as Archbishop of Munich, covered up for a priest in 1980. Sadly, as is often the case when abusers are protected, that priest went on to sexually abuse again and was eventually convicted.
In addition to the commonality of practice Cardinals and Bishops engaged in to cover up known child sexual abuse and protect the abusers, there are the 1962 and 2001 Vatican documents instructing Bishops around the world to conduct investigations into allegations of child sexual abuse in secret.
In addition, in respect of Ireland, there is the 1997 letter from the Congregation of the Clergy in the Vatican to the Irish Catholic Bishops which makes it very clear that reporting of any suspected sexual abuse of children to civil authorities gives rise to serious reservations of a canonical nature and that the procedures established by the Code of Canon Law must instead be meticulously followed. The Holy See’s insistence in its statement this weekend that that letter did not serve to deter any bishops from reporting of allegations to civil authorities is simply not true. And no amount of dishonest spin changes that fact.
Though it was clearly wrong for the Vatican to attempt to deter members of the Irish Catholic hierarchy from reporting to civil authorities they really needn’t have bothered because what was newly revealed in the Holy See statement was the fact that Irish Catholic Bishops didn’t take the child protection guidelines any more seriously than the Vatican did in the first place. We are told that Cardinals Daly and Connell clearly understood the difference between a document of the Irish Bishops’ Conference and a document of the Irish Catholic Bishops’ Advisory Committee on Child Sexual Abuse by Priests and Religious: they can ignore the latter.
Disingenuous of them not to have made that clear to the rest of us in 1996 when they deliberately gave the impression that from then on, in all cases where it was known or suspected that the sexual abuse of a child had taken place, they would report it to the civil authorities.
And now, instead of a Catholic hierarchy here and in the Vatican explaining to us why anyone should ever believe a word they say ever again, or ever trust them on the issue of child protection, they seem to think the duly elected leader of our country now owes them an explanation for some of the comments he made during his speech in the Dail following publication of the Cloyne Report.
In his speech Taoiseach Enda Kenny spoke of an attempt by the Holy See to frustrate an Inquiry in a sovereign, democratic republic as little as three years ago. I think the Taoiseach was right to articulate the anger so many people in Ireland felt on hearing not only about Vatican and Papal Nuncio non-cooperation with the Dublin and Cloyne inquiries but also our anger at attempts made by the Vatican to get the Irish Government to instruct the Murphy Inquiry on how it should approach the Vatican during the course of that Inquiry. Non-cooperation with an Inquiry is an act of frustration of that Inquiry.
It should also be remembered that the Cloyne Report tells that there was no attempt to implement child protection guidelines in that Diocese until 2008, despite there being a requirement within the State’s child protection guidelines to do so. That too was an unacceptable frustration of attempts in this country, to advance child protection.
Catholic bishops are owed nothing. They should consider themselves lucky that the only reason many of them are not behind bars is because the disgusting and unforgiveable acts they engaged in to conceal known child sexual abuse and protect abusers were not a criminal offence at the time.
Andrew Madden
END 05/09/11
Saturday, September 3, 2011
Holy See Response September 2011
The gimlet eye of the canon lawyer has been busy in the Vatican as publication of the Holy See’s response to the Irish Government regarding the Report of the Commission of Investigation into the Catholic Diocese of Cloyne reveals every effort to continue to find ways for the Holy See to absolve itself of any responsibility for the cover up of the sexual abuse of children by priests for decades from one side of the world to the other.
It has been widely reported in recent months that Irish Catholic Bishops were frustrated in their attempts to implement their own child protection guidelines (1996 Framework Document) because the Congregation of the Clergy in the Vatican only considered those guidelines to be a study document. It is interesting to note from today’s Holy See response that members of the Catholic Hierarchy in Ireland also shared the view that those guidelines were not binding on them at all, the only people who seemed to think that Catholic Bishops were implementing child protection guidelines were the Irish Government and the Irish people, and it was disingenuous of Bishops to give that false impression in 1996 and allow it to continue and develop over the following years.
The Holy See continues to insist that the 1997 letter from the Congregation of the Clergy in the Vatican to the Irish Catholic Bishops did not forbid reporting of allegations to civil authorities. This continues to be completely untrue. The 1997 letter makes it very clear that such reporting gives rise to serious reservations of a canonical nature and that the procedures established by the Code of Canon Law must be meticulously followed. Such procedures make no mention of reporting the sexual abuse of children by priests to civil authorities.
The response from the Holy See refers to the absence of mandatory reporting in Irish law. Such absence does not excuse the lengths Catholic Bishops went to conceal known child sexual abuse and to protect and reassign abusers. Nor does it excuse the way Catholic Bishops misled people into thinking they were implementing child protection guidelines when clearly they were not.
It is worthy of note too that while the Holy See has taken note of the Irish Government’s intention to introduce legislation making it a ‘criminal offence to withhold information about a serious offence against a child’, it states that the prescriptions of civil law should always be followed, but it includes the qualification ‘without prejudice to the sacramental internal forum’.
Regardless of the Holy See’s reservations or observations what is important now is the child protection legislation being prepared by both the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Defence. The wording of such legislation will be very important and every effort must be made to ensure that no undue, unnecessary or unworthy exceptions are facilitated.
END 03/09/2011
It has been widely reported in recent months that Irish Catholic Bishops were frustrated in their attempts to implement their own child protection guidelines (1996 Framework Document) because the Congregation of the Clergy in the Vatican only considered those guidelines to be a study document. It is interesting to note from today’s Holy See response that members of the Catholic Hierarchy in Ireland also shared the view that those guidelines were not binding on them at all, the only people who seemed to think that Catholic Bishops were implementing child protection guidelines were the Irish Government and the Irish people, and it was disingenuous of Bishops to give that false impression in 1996 and allow it to continue and develop over the following years.
The Holy See continues to insist that the 1997 letter from the Congregation of the Clergy in the Vatican to the Irish Catholic Bishops did not forbid reporting of allegations to civil authorities. This continues to be completely untrue. The 1997 letter makes it very clear that such reporting gives rise to serious reservations of a canonical nature and that the procedures established by the Code of Canon Law must be meticulously followed. Such procedures make no mention of reporting the sexual abuse of children by priests to civil authorities.
The response from the Holy See refers to the absence of mandatory reporting in Irish law. Such absence does not excuse the lengths Catholic Bishops went to conceal known child sexual abuse and to protect and reassign abusers. Nor does it excuse the way Catholic Bishops misled people into thinking they were implementing child protection guidelines when clearly they were not.
It is worthy of note too that while the Holy See has taken note of the Irish Government’s intention to introduce legislation making it a ‘criminal offence to withhold information about a serious offence against a child’, it states that the prescriptions of civil law should always be followed, but it includes the qualification ‘without prejudice to the sacramental internal forum’.
Regardless of the Holy See’s reservations or observations what is important now is the child protection legislation being prepared by both the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Defence. The wording of such legislation will be very important and every effort must be made to ensure that no undue, unnecessary or unworthy exceptions are facilitated.
END 03/09/2011
Monday, August 22, 2011
Bishop John Magee
Bishop John Magee
I have just read the statement by Bishop John Magee in respect of the Cloyne Report.
The statement contains repeated apologies for the sexual abuse of children by priests in the Cloyne Diocese and for ‘the failure of the Diocese to effectively manage allegations of child sexual abuse’. It is hard to imagine such empty words being of any comfort or assistance to anyone. The fact that Bishop Magee failed to account in any way for what was revealed in the Cloyne Report does not come as any surprise. Catholic Bishops, in this country and elsewhere, have a track record of not wanting in any way to be held accountable for their actions and inactions as revealed in the various Reports.
These are some of the questions I would like Bishop Magee to have answered:
1. Why did he take little or no active interest in the management of child sexual abuse allegations from 1996 – 2008?
2. Why did he delegate so much responsibility for implementation of child protection guidelines to Monsignor O’Callaghan who did not approve of the requirement to report to civil authorities as contained therein?
3. Why did he respond to a HSE questionnaire in 2007 to the effect that the diocese reported allegations of child sexual abuse to the HSE and/or Garda Siochana in keeping with Children First when this was untrue?
4. Why did he tell the then Minister for Children Barry Andrews that the Framework Document guidelines were fully in place and were being complied with when this was untrue?
5. Why was Dr McCoy not provided with all relevant files when he was conducting a review, on behalf of the Bishops’ Conference, into the Cloyne Diocese in 2003?
6. Why did he tell the Commission of Investigation that he had not seen a copy of that (unfavourable) review until February 2009 when in fact he had been given a copy in 2004? And if he was aware of its contents, why did he ignore them?
7. How does Bishop Magee suppose that anyone have any confidence in Catholic Bishops’ claims to be implementing child protection guidelines today, when all the time that he was assuring people that he was doing so..... he was, in fact, not?
END – 22/08/2011
I have just read the statement by Bishop John Magee in respect of the Cloyne Report.
The statement contains repeated apologies for the sexual abuse of children by priests in the Cloyne Diocese and for ‘the failure of the Diocese to effectively manage allegations of child sexual abuse’. It is hard to imagine such empty words being of any comfort or assistance to anyone. The fact that Bishop Magee failed to account in any way for what was revealed in the Cloyne Report does not come as any surprise. Catholic Bishops, in this country and elsewhere, have a track record of not wanting in any way to be held accountable for their actions and inactions as revealed in the various Reports.
These are some of the questions I would like Bishop Magee to have answered:
1. Why did he take little or no active interest in the management of child sexual abuse allegations from 1996 – 2008?
2. Why did he delegate so much responsibility for implementation of child protection guidelines to Monsignor O’Callaghan who did not approve of the requirement to report to civil authorities as contained therein?
3. Why did he respond to a HSE questionnaire in 2007 to the effect that the diocese reported allegations of child sexual abuse to the HSE and/or Garda Siochana in keeping with Children First when this was untrue?
4. Why did he tell the then Minister for Children Barry Andrews that the Framework Document guidelines were fully in place and were being complied with when this was untrue?
5. Why was Dr McCoy not provided with all relevant files when he was conducting a review, on behalf of the Bishops’ Conference, into the Cloyne Diocese in 2003?
6. Why did he tell the Commission of Investigation that he had not seen a copy of that (unfavourable) review until February 2009 when in fact he had been given a copy in 2004? And if he was aware of its contents, why did he ignore them?
7. How does Bishop Magee suppose that anyone have any confidence in Catholic Bishops’ claims to be implementing child protection guidelines today, when all the time that he was assuring people that he was doing so..... he was, in fact, not?
END – 22/08/2011
Monday, August 1, 2011
Senator David Norris
In 1997 Senator David Norris wrote a letter to the Israeli High Court in an appeal for clemency for his former partner, Mr Ezra Nawi Yizhak, who was before the courts having pleaded guilty to the statutory rape of a 15 year old boy. Bishops and others in the Catholic Church, in this country and elsewhere, have protected child molesters and rapists from the criminal justice system and, even worse, left such people in positions where they had access to more children, and all too often, those who the bishops had protected went on to molest and rape more children. The usual apologists for the Catholic Church who try to equate what Senator Norris did with what the Catholic hierarchy did don’t fool me. No opportunity by such people to minimise the Catholic Church’s role in causing the sexual abuse of so many children is lost and no opportunity to give vent to their homophobia is missed.
No gutter too deep either.
Does that mean that there is no problem with Senator Norris’s letter? No it does not.
I haven’t spoken to Senator David Norris since this weekend’s revelations but before I came away on holiday yesterday, I listened to people speaking on radio who have.
I gather that Senator Norris acknowledges that his writing of that letter, in 1997, to the Israeli High Court in an appeal for clemency for his former partner, Ezra Nawi Yizhak, was wrong.
I’m glad to hear it, because it certainly was wrong.
I’m sure I’m right in saying that at least two Government ministers in recent years have had to resign from office in circumstances where they sought to intervene, in some way or other, on behalf of people who were the subject of the criminal justice system, or who were seeking to help others who were the subject of the criminal justice system.
If the same standard is to be applied to Senator Norris then it is not possible to support the view that he could hold the highest office in the land having intervened the way he did. Neither could anyone else who made similar interventions.
But my concerns about the letter go further, because Senator Norris went a lot further than just pleading for clemency. Most of Senator Norris’s pleading is on technical grounds some of which I would have to take issue with. In fact it’s more than that. What Senator Norris sought to do, whether he realised it or not, was to minimise what Mr Yizhak had done. His motivation seems to have been to try and secure a non-custodial sentence for Mr Yizhak. Unfortunately that doesn’t make it okay.
Serious offences, including statutory rape, require a custodial sentence. I don’t support calling for a non-custodial sentence in a case of this nature on the basis that the perpetrator pleaded guilty and I am surprised to read the claim in Senator Norris’s letter that in this jurisdiction such a mitigating fact would very likely result in a non-custodial sentence.
I have long been on the record as saying that possession of images of child sexual abuse should automatically attract a custodial sentence, so I can’t support a non-custodial sentence for statutory rape.
I am also perturbed to read Senator Norris refer to Mr Yizhak's guilty plea as unwise; if Mr Yizhak committed the offence then it is only right and proper that he should admit his guilt at the earliest opportunity to save the young boy, who was the victim in this case, any further distress that may be caused by further court proceedings including a trial.
Senator Norris also raised the issue of consent in mitigation by referencing studies which apparently argue that in some cases where the victim can be considered the instigator or at least a willing participant, a sentence towards the lower end of the range would be appropriate. I cannot in all conscience support the use of such an argument in mitigation by Senator Norris.
Senator David Norris was wrong to write that letter and I think in these circumstances he should withdraw from the nomination process to become President of Ireland.
END
01/08/2011
No gutter too deep either.
Does that mean that there is no problem with Senator Norris’s letter? No it does not.
I haven’t spoken to Senator David Norris since this weekend’s revelations but before I came away on holiday yesterday, I listened to people speaking on radio who have.
I gather that Senator Norris acknowledges that his writing of that letter, in 1997, to the Israeli High Court in an appeal for clemency for his former partner, Ezra Nawi Yizhak, was wrong.
I’m glad to hear it, because it certainly was wrong.
I’m sure I’m right in saying that at least two Government ministers in recent years have had to resign from office in circumstances where they sought to intervene, in some way or other, on behalf of people who were the subject of the criminal justice system, or who were seeking to help others who were the subject of the criminal justice system.
If the same standard is to be applied to Senator Norris then it is not possible to support the view that he could hold the highest office in the land having intervened the way he did. Neither could anyone else who made similar interventions.
But my concerns about the letter go further, because Senator Norris went a lot further than just pleading for clemency. Most of Senator Norris’s pleading is on technical grounds some of which I would have to take issue with. In fact it’s more than that. What Senator Norris sought to do, whether he realised it or not, was to minimise what Mr Yizhak had done. His motivation seems to have been to try and secure a non-custodial sentence for Mr Yizhak. Unfortunately that doesn’t make it okay.
Serious offences, including statutory rape, require a custodial sentence. I don’t support calling for a non-custodial sentence in a case of this nature on the basis that the perpetrator pleaded guilty and I am surprised to read the claim in Senator Norris’s letter that in this jurisdiction such a mitigating fact would very likely result in a non-custodial sentence.
I have long been on the record as saying that possession of images of child sexual abuse should automatically attract a custodial sentence, so I can’t support a non-custodial sentence for statutory rape.
I am also perturbed to read Senator Norris refer to Mr Yizhak's guilty plea as unwise; if Mr Yizhak committed the offence then it is only right and proper that he should admit his guilt at the earliest opportunity to save the young boy, who was the victim in this case, any further distress that may be caused by further court proceedings including a trial.
Senator Norris also raised the issue of consent in mitigation by referencing studies which apparently argue that in some cases where the victim can be considered the instigator or at least a willing participant, a sentence towards the lower end of the range would be appropriate. I cannot in all conscience support the use of such an argument in mitigation by Senator Norris.
Senator David Norris was wrong to write that letter and I think in these circumstances he should withdraw from the nomination process to become President of Ireland.
END
01/08/2011
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Child Sex Offender Disclosure Scheme (Sarah’s Law)
Child Sex Offender Disclosure Scheme (Sarah’s Law)
The management of sex offenders in the community post-conviction/release is an important dimension to child protection and I believe that one measure that would enhance such management is the introduction of a Child Sex Offender Disclosure Scheme, otherwise known as Sarah’s Law.
The Gardai and the Probation Service have some responsibility for monitoring known sex offenders who are living in the community but there is a limit to how much they can do to keep children safe and every effort must be made to deal with any risk that offenders pose. Approximately half of the sex offenders released this year, in Ireland, or due for release in the coming few years are or will be subject to Post Release Supervision Orders.
Electronic tagging of some offenders is another tool that the Gardai and the Probation Service should have at their disposal to enhance their management of known sex offenders. Restrictions on an offender’s right to consume alcohol is another, some offenders only act out on their desires having consumed alcohol. Random unannounced visits to an offender’s home would also be a useful way to monitor a known offender’s activities. Currently none of these options is available to Gardai or the Probation Service.
However in addition to giving statutory bodies more powers to help keep children safe I think the case can be made for giving parents, guardians and others access to another facility to assist in helping to keep children safe, and that is the Child Sex Offender Disclosure Scheme, otherwise known as Sarah’s Law.
The Child Sex Offender Disclosure Scheme was piloted to great effect in the Britain. The pilot scheme was started in 2008 and involved four police forces in Warwickshire, Cambridgeshire, Cleveland and Hampshire. The British Home Office said the pilot test was very successful because it had protected 60 children. Nearly 600 inquiries made to the four police forces involved led to 315 applications for information and 21 disclosures about registered child sex offenders. A further 43 cases led to other actions, including referrals to children's social care and 11 general disclosures were made regarding protection issues linked to violent offending.
As a result of this the Scheme is now being rolled out in all police forces in England and Wales.
So how does it work in?
The Child Sex Offender Disclosure Scheme means anyone can ask for a police check on someone they are worried about by simply calling or visiting their local police. To actually make an application, they will need to visit the local police station in person where they are asked to show produce some ID, tell the police what their relationship to the child is and explain why they want to have a particular person checked.
The scheme is for anyone who wants to find out if someone in contact with a child has a record of child sexual offences. They could be a family member, friend, neighbour or anyone that’s worried about a child.
The majority of child sexual offenders are known to their victims. They are often a friend of the victim’s family, a friend of the victim, or a member of the victim’s family.
If the check shows a record for child sexual offences, or other offences that might put the child at risk, the police may share this information. However, this information will only be shared with the people best placed to protect the child. This will usually be the child’s parent, carer or guardian. The information might not be shared with the person who made the enquiry.
I think the introduction of a Child Sex Offender Disclosure Scheme in Ireland would be a serve as another very useful measure to help protect children.
The management of sex offenders in the community post-conviction/release is an important dimension to child protection and I believe that one measure that would enhance such management is the introduction of a Child Sex Offender Disclosure Scheme, otherwise known as Sarah’s Law.
The Gardai and the Probation Service have some responsibility for monitoring known sex offenders who are living in the community but there is a limit to how much they can do to keep children safe and every effort must be made to deal with any risk that offenders pose. Approximately half of the sex offenders released this year, in Ireland, or due for release in the coming few years are or will be subject to Post Release Supervision Orders.
Electronic tagging of some offenders is another tool that the Gardai and the Probation Service should have at their disposal to enhance their management of known sex offenders. Restrictions on an offender’s right to consume alcohol is another, some offenders only act out on their desires having consumed alcohol. Random unannounced visits to an offender’s home would also be a useful way to monitor a known offender’s activities. Currently none of these options is available to Gardai or the Probation Service.
However in addition to giving statutory bodies more powers to help keep children safe I think the case can be made for giving parents, guardians and others access to another facility to assist in helping to keep children safe, and that is the Child Sex Offender Disclosure Scheme, otherwise known as Sarah’s Law.
The Child Sex Offender Disclosure Scheme was piloted to great effect in the Britain. The pilot scheme was started in 2008 and involved four police forces in Warwickshire, Cambridgeshire, Cleveland and Hampshire. The British Home Office said the pilot test was very successful because it had protected 60 children. Nearly 600 inquiries made to the four police forces involved led to 315 applications for information and 21 disclosures about registered child sex offenders. A further 43 cases led to other actions, including referrals to children's social care and 11 general disclosures were made regarding protection issues linked to violent offending.
As a result of this the Scheme is now being rolled out in all police forces in England and Wales.
So how does it work in?
The Child Sex Offender Disclosure Scheme means anyone can ask for a police check on someone they are worried about by simply calling or visiting their local police. To actually make an application, they will need to visit the local police station in person where they are asked to show produce some ID, tell the police what their relationship to the child is and explain why they want to have a particular person checked.
The scheme is for anyone who wants to find out if someone in contact with a child has a record of child sexual offences. They could be a family member, friend, neighbour or anyone that’s worried about a child.
The majority of child sexual offenders are known to their victims. They are often a friend of the victim’s family, a friend of the victim, or a member of the victim’s family.
If the check shows a record for child sexual offences, or other offences that might put the child at risk, the police may share this information. However, this information will only be shared with the people best placed to protect the child. This will usually be the child’s parent, carer or guardian. The information might not be shared with the person who made the enquiry.
I think the introduction of a Child Sex Offender Disclosure Scheme in Ireland would be a serve as another very useful measure to help protect children.
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Cloyne Report
In 1996 the Catholic Church in Ireland published its new guidelines Child Sexual Abuse: Framework for a Church Response (the 1996 Guidelines). It was widely reported at that time that all allegations of child sexual abuse against Catholic priests that were brought to the attention of any Diocese in the country would be reported to the civil authorities from that point on. I did my best to point out at that time that what the 1996 Guidelines actually said was that where it was known or suspected that a priest or religious had sexually abused a child the matter should be reported to civil authorities. I was concerned at the time that the qualification of knowing or suspecting that abuse of a child had actually taken place was a loophole that would be taken advantage of. On reading the Murphy Report some 14 years later I could see that my concerns were well founded.
In addition, more recently it was learned that only 1 year after the Guidelines were published, the Vatican let it be known to the bishops that if the Guidelines were applied the consequences could be highly embarrassing for them. That same correspondence also stated that the 1996 Guidelines were only a study document and that the procedures followed must instead be those in accordance with canon law.
At no time did Irish Catholic bishops move this information into the public domain, quite the opposite. Even after publication of the Murphy Report bishops continued to claim that their covering up of child sexual abuse by Catholic priests ceased in 1996 on publication of the new Guidelines, even though the Murphy Report itself contained many examples of this being completely untrue.
Now we have publication of the Cloyne Report: a representative sample of allegations of child sexual abuse made against 19 Catholic priests in the Diocese of Cloyne over the 13 year period 1996 - 2009. The Report found allegations against 33 priests.
So how did the Catholic Church in Cloyne handle these allegations? Were all allegations reported to civil authorities as people were led to believe in 1996?
No they were not. We learn in this Report that the response of the Diocese of Cloyne to complaints and allegations of clerical child sexual abuse in the period 1996 to 2008 was inadequate and inappropriate. The principal feature of this Report can be simply expressed. The Diocese of Cloyne accepted the Framework Document and promised to implement it. It did not do so. On the contrary, Bishop Magee appears to have taken little real interest in its implementation for 12 years. He allowed the authority of the diocese in this regard to be exercised for that period by others, in particular Monsignor O’Callaghan. Monsignor O’Callaghan acted in what he perceived to be the best interests of the Church. Bishop Magee told the Minister for Children that the Framework Document guidelines were fully in place and were being fully complied with. This was false. The same must be said of his assurances to the HSE given in 2007.
It is clear to the Commission that the Diocese of Cloyne, while ostensibly supportive of the procedures outlined in the Framework Document, was never genuinely committed to their implementation. The main person involved, Monsignor O’Callaghan, clearly was not fully supportive of the procedures. It is, therefore, not surprising that the procedures were never properly implemented. Bishop Magee must take primary responsibility for the failure to implement the procedures.
During all of this time, Catholic bishops were hiding behind the 1996 Guidelines or their subsequent replacements. This has implications for child protection and safety today in the context of the Catholic Church. The Church’s current procedures Safeguarding Children are derived from and compliant with the State’s child protection guidelines Children First. But as today’s Report clearly shows, publishing guidelines is no proof that they are being implemented at local, diocesan or national level. Catholic bishops did set up the National Board for Safeguarding Children: a primary objective of the Board for 2010 was to conduct a review of each Diocese in the country to ensure that the Church’s current child safeguarding policies and practices were appropriate. However we learned in May of this year from the National Board’s Annual Report that this process was stopped, after a review of only 3 Dioceses had taken place, because the bishops would not co-operate, citing data protection concerns. The Data Protection Commissioner however has confirmed that there is no data protection concern that hinders the bishops’ from co-operating with the National Board’s review.
It came as no surprise to me to read in the National Board’s Annual Report that as part of the agreement, which only now has apparently secured the bishops’ co-operation, the National Board will not comment publically on what it finds in its review of any Diocese: the introduction of any such information into the public domain is possible only with the consent of the bishops. It is totally unacceptable that the National Board for Safeguarding Children in the Catholic Church cannot move any child protection concerns or findings into the public domain without the consent of Catholic Bishops. Imagine HIQA being similarly constrained by the HSE. A genuine data protection concern would have been resolved with a genuine data protection solution, not one where bishops get to control a National Board while at the same time trying to pass it off as independent.
I don’t mean to give the impression that I have huge confidence in any review process set up by the Catholic Church. The Archdiocese of Philadelphia was investigated by a Grand Jury Investigation and its Report, published in 2003, made very similar reading to the Murphy Report, with the same tactics employed there to conceal known child sexual abuse by catholic priests. Yet despite those revelations and the fact that the Catholic Church in the United States set up national and local review boards to appraise their child protection and reporting practices, the Archdiocese of Philadelphia still went on to leave a further 37 priests in ministry despite credible allegations of child sexual abuse having been made against them, and the review boards were completely unaware of this because this information had been successfully hidden from them.
Here in Ireland, with the publication of the Cloyne Report, it is proven yet again that the Catholic Church is not an organisation that can be trusted with the safety, welfare and protection of children. I have no doubt that at a local level there are people working hard to make sure that child protection practices are to a high standard within their parishes, but we don’t know how widespread good or bad practice is at parish level.
A second Grand Jury in Philadelphia, this year, made several recommendations but I want to draw your attention to their final recommendation:
Report sexual abuse allegations directly to law enforcement authorities. The horrors inflicted … by sexual predators not only wound bodies, rob innocence, and betray faith. They also violate laws. As crime victims, those injured by sexually compulsive priests should do what victims of criminals in any other profession should do – contact law enforcement authorities.
In some circumstances, introducing law enforcement into the equation might also help change the calculations both of sexual predators and those who would grant them revered positions with access to children.
With occasional exceptions, Catholic Bishops cannot be trusted with allegations of child sexual abuse.
Andrew Madden
Author Altar Boy, A Story of Life After Abuse
twitter.com/andrewmmadden
facebook.com/andrewmarkmadden
In addition, more recently it was learned that only 1 year after the Guidelines were published, the Vatican let it be known to the bishops that if the Guidelines were applied the consequences could be highly embarrassing for them. That same correspondence also stated that the 1996 Guidelines were only a study document and that the procedures followed must instead be those in accordance with canon law.
At no time did Irish Catholic bishops move this information into the public domain, quite the opposite. Even after publication of the Murphy Report bishops continued to claim that their covering up of child sexual abuse by Catholic priests ceased in 1996 on publication of the new Guidelines, even though the Murphy Report itself contained many examples of this being completely untrue.
Now we have publication of the Cloyne Report: a representative sample of allegations of child sexual abuse made against 19 Catholic priests in the Diocese of Cloyne over the 13 year period 1996 - 2009. The Report found allegations against 33 priests.
So how did the Catholic Church in Cloyne handle these allegations? Were all allegations reported to civil authorities as people were led to believe in 1996?
No they were not. We learn in this Report that the response of the Diocese of Cloyne to complaints and allegations of clerical child sexual abuse in the period 1996 to 2008 was inadequate and inappropriate. The principal feature of this Report can be simply expressed. The Diocese of Cloyne accepted the Framework Document and promised to implement it. It did not do so. On the contrary, Bishop Magee appears to have taken little real interest in its implementation for 12 years. He allowed the authority of the diocese in this regard to be exercised for that period by others, in particular Monsignor O’Callaghan. Monsignor O’Callaghan acted in what he perceived to be the best interests of the Church. Bishop Magee told the Minister for Children that the Framework Document guidelines were fully in place and were being fully complied with. This was false. The same must be said of his assurances to the HSE given in 2007.
It is clear to the Commission that the Diocese of Cloyne, while ostensibly supportive of the procedures outlined in the Framework Document, was never genuinely committed to their implementation. The main person involved, Monsignor O’Callaghan, clearly was not fully supportive of the procedures. It is, therefore, not surprising that the procedures were never properly implemented. Bishop Magee must take primary responsibility for the failure to implement the procedures.
During all of this time, Catholic bishops were hiding behind the 1996 Guidelines or their subsequent replacements. This has implications for child protection and safety today in the context of the Catholic Church. The Church’s current procedures Safeguarding Children are derived from and compliant with the State’s child protection guidelines Children First. But as today’s Report clearly shows, publishing guidelines is no proof that they are being implemented at local, diocesan or national level. Catholic bishops did set up the National Board for Safeguarding Children: a primary objective of the Board for 2010 was to conduct a review of each Diocese in the country to ensure that the Church’s current child safeguarding policies and practices were appropriate. However we learned in May of this year from the National Board’s Annual Report that this process was stopped, after a review of only 3 Dioceses had taken place, because the bishops would not co-operate, citing data protection concerns. The Data Protection Commissioner however has confirmed that there is no data protection concern that hinders the bishops’ from co-operating with the National Board’s review.
It came as no surprise to me to read in the National Board’s Annual Report that as part of the agreement, which only now has apparently secured the bishops’ co-operation, the National Board will not comment publically on what it finds in its review of any Diocese: the introduction of any such information into the public domain is possible only with the consent of the bishops. It is totally unacceptable that the National Board for Safeguarding Children in the Catholic Church cannot move any child protection concerns or findings into the public domain without the consent of Catholic Bishops. Imagine HIQA being similarly constrained by the HSE. A genuine data protection concern would have been resolved with a genuine data protection solution, not one where bishops get to control a National Board while at the same time trying to pass it off as independent.
I don’t mean to give the impression that I have huge confidence in any review process set up by the Catholic Church. The Archdiocese of Philadelphia was investigated by a Grand Jury Investigation and its Report, published in 2003, made very similar reading to the Murphy Report, with the same tactics employed there to conceal known child sexual abuse by catholic priests. Yet despite those revelations and the fact that the Catholic Church in the United States set up national and local review boards to appraise their child protection and reporting practices, the Archdiocese of Philadelphia still went on to leave a further 37 priests in ministry despite credible allegations of child sexual abuse having been made against them, and the review boards were completely unaware of this because this information had been successfully hidden from them.
Here in Ireland, with the publication of the Cloyne Report, it is proven yet again that the Catholic Church is not an organisation that can be trusted with the safety, welfare and protection of children. I have no doubt that at a local level there are people working hard to make sure that child protection practices are to a high standard within their parishes, but we don’t know how widespread good or bad practice is at parish level.
A second Grand Jury in Philadelphia, this year, made several recommendations but I want to draw your attention to their final recommendation:
Report sexual abuse allegations directly to law enforcement authorities. The horrors inflicted … by sexual predators not only wound bodies, rob innocence, and betray faith. They also violate laws. As crime victims, those injured by sexually compulsive priests should do what victims of criminals in any other profession should do – contact law enforcement authorities.
In some circumstances, introducing law enforcement into the equation might also help change the calculations both of sexual predators and those who would grant them revered positions with access to children.
With occasional exceptions, Catholic Bishops cannot be trusted with allegations of child sexual abuse.
Andrew Madden
Author Altar Boy, A Story of Life After Abuse
twitter.com/andrewmmadden
facebook.com/andrewmarkmadden
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
NBSC Annual Report 2010
The National Board for Safeguarding Children in the Catholic Church today published its Annual Report for 2010.
A primary objective of the Board for 2010 was to conduct a review of each Diocese in the country to ensure that the Church’s current child safeguarding policies and practices were properly handled. It is with considerable concern that I read in today’s Report that this process was stopped after a review of only 3 Dioceses because the Bishops’ Conference, the Conference of Religious of Ireland and the Irish Missionary Union (the Sponsoring Bodies) apparently received legal advice to the effect that they should not co-operate with this review, despite the fact that those same organisations were responsible for setting it up in the first place. This non-cooperation has impaired the work of the Board in respect of this review for almost a year and has only now been resolved.
It is shocking to read in today’s Report that as part of the agreement which secured the Sponsoring Bodies co-operation the National Board will not comment publically on what it finds in its review of any Diocese or other Church authority: the introduction of any such information into the public domain is possible only the consent of the head of the Diocese or authority. It is totally unacceptable that the National Board for Safeguarding Children in the Catholic Church cannot move any child protection concerns or findings into the public domain without the consent of Catholic Bishops.
It is also of great concern to read that the National Board’s ability to track the national picture of safeguarding in the Catholic Church was adversely affected throughout the year by reporting deficits by the Dioceses and other Church authorities.
In response to today’s revelations I urge the Minister for Children Frances Fitzgerald to introduce legislation to put the Children First Guidelines on a statutory basis as a matter of absolute urgency. This should be speedily followed by the introduction of a system of independent audit of compliance with Children First.
End 11/05/2011
A primary objective of the Board for 2010 was to conduct a review of each Diocese in the country to ensure that the Church’s current child safeguarding policies and practices were properly handled. It is with considerable concern that I read in today’s Report that this process was stopped after a review of only 3 Dioceses because the Bishops’ Conference, the Conference of Religious of Ireland and the Irish Missionary Union (the Sponsoring Bodies) apparently received legal advice to the effect that they should not co-operate with this review, despite the fact that those same organisations were responsible for setting it up in the first place. This non-cooperation has impaired the work of the Board in respect of this review for almost a year and has only now been resolved.
It is shocking to read in today’s Report that as part of the agreement which secured the Sponsoring Bodies co-operation the National Board will not comment publically on what it finds in its review of any Diocese or other Church authority: the introduction of any such information into the public domain is possible only the consent of the head of the Diocese or authority. It is totally unacceptable that the National Board for Safeguarding Children in the Catholic Church cannot move any child protection concerns or findings into the public domain without the consent of Catholic Bishops.
It is also of great concern to read that the National Board’s ability to track the national picture of safeguarding in the Catholic Church was adversely affected throughout the year by reporting deficits by the Dioceses and other Church authorities.
In response to today’s revelations I urge the Minister for Children Frances Fitzgerald to introduce legislation to put the Children First Guidelines on a statutory basis as a matter of absolute urgency. This should be speedily followed by the introduction of a system of independent audit of compliance with Children First.
End 11/05/2011
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Archdiocese of Dublin – Safeguarding Children
Archdiocese of Dublin – Safeguarding Children
I welcome today’s publication of Child Safeguarding and Protection - Policy and Procedures by Archbishop Diarmuid Martin. Preventing any child from coming to harm is just as important as doing the right thing once a concern about a child, or someone who may be a danger to children, has been raised. In this regard I welcome the commitment to create and maintain safe environments for children who are involved with Church activities by providing relevant training to all Diocesan staff and volunteers, developing materials to assist parishes and Diocesan agencies and carrying out audits of parishes and agencies to ensure they are compliant with best practice.
I also welcome the commitment within the Dublin Archdiocese to ensure that all Child Protection Policies and Practices are compliant with the State’s Children First Guidelines, this indeed is a requirement of Children First.
I note that it is practice in the Dublin Archdiocese to report ‘all child protection concerns to the HSE and An Garda Siochana’ – nothing short of this standard is acceptable from any Diocese in the country, and it would be of some use if each Catholic Diocese in Ireland could confirm that this standard is shared.
It is worth pointing out that the State’s Child Protection Guidelines, Children First are still only guidelines, there is no legal requirement on anyone to follow them and this is a situation which has to change. In this regard I welcome the commitment of Minister for Children Frances Fitzgerald to introduce legislation to put the Children First Guidelines on a statutory basis and to introduce Certification in Children First. I would also welcome the introduction of a system of independent audit of compliance with Children First.
END - 14/04/2011
I welcome today’s publication of Child Safeguarding and Protection - Policy and Procedures by Archbishop Diarmuid Martin. Preventing any child from coming to harm is just as important as doing the right thing once a concern about a child, or someone who may be a danger to children, has been raised. In this regard I welcome the commitment to create and maintain safe environments for children who are involved with Church activities by providing relevant training to all Diocesan staff and volunteers, developing materials to assist parishes and Diocesan agencies and carrying out audits of parishes and agencies to ensure they are compliant with best practice.
I also welcome the commitment within the Dublin Archdiocese to ensure that all Child Protection Policies and Practices are compliant with the State’s Children First Guidelines, this indeed is a requirement of Children First.
I note that it is practice in the Dublin Archdiocese to report ‘all child protection concerns to the HSE and An Garda Siochana’ – nothing short of this standard is acceptable from any Diocese in the country, and it would be of some use if each Catholic Diocese in Ireland could confirm that this standard is shared.
It is worth pointing out that the State’s Child Protection Guidelines, Children First are still only guidelines, there is no legal requirement on anyone to follow them and this is a situation which has to change. In this regard I welcome the commitment of Minister for Children Frances Fitzgerald to introduce legislation to put the Children First Guidelines on a statutory basis and to introduce Certification in Children First. I would also welcome the introduction of a system of independent audit of compliance with Children First.
END - 14/04/2011
Monday, March 28, 2011
Child Welfare and Protection Agency (CWPA)
I very much welcome today’s announcement by Minister for Children Frances Fitzgerald TD that a body dedicated to the protection and safety of our children is being set up and that such responsibilities are to be removed from the HSE.
In a speech I gave in March 2010, published here, I said:
.... the HSE..... its inability to work in its current structure is plain for all to see..........the safety, welfare and protection of children must no longer be left in the hands of an organisation so obviously unfit for purpose. A new Department of Children, with a Minister who knows what he or she is doing, is a must for any new Government interested in seriously addressing the current broken system.
I am so pleased to see that the new Government has moved so speedily to establish the Department for Children and that work to create a new dedicated agency (Child Welfare and Protection Agency (CWPA)) whose exclusive function will be to deliver child welfare and protection services is underway.
In a speech I gave in March 2010, published here, I said:
.... the HSE..... its inability to work in its current structure is plain for all to see..........the safety, welfare and protection of children must no longer be left in the hands of an organisation so obviously unfit for purpose. A new Department of Children, with a Minister who knows what he or she is doing, is a must for any new Government interested in seriously addressing the current broken system.
I am so pleased to see that the new Government has moved so speedily to establish the Department for Children and that work to create a new dedicated agency (Child Welfare and Protection Agency (CWPA)) whose exclusive function will be to deliver child welfare and protection services is underway.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)