Thanks in part to RTE’s Prime Time Special ‘Cardinal Secrets’ in October 2002 and to the response of the Minister for Justice Equality and Law Reform Mr Michael McDowell TD to that programme, the Commission of Investigation into the handling of allegations of child sexual abuse by priests in Catholic Archdiocese of Dublin is almost ready to start its work. This is a very welcome, though long overdue, response to a decade of revelations of abuse by priests and cover up by the Archdiocese of Dublin.
This Commission of Inquiry has its legislative basis in the Commissions of Investigation Act, 2004 and its Terms of Reference as just published by the Government are as follows:
1. To select a representative sample of complaints or allegations of clerical child sexual abuse made to the Archdiocesan and other Church authorities and public and State authorities in the period 1 January 1975 to 1 May 2004 against clergy operating under the aegis of the Archdiocese of Dublin.
2. To examine and report on the nature of the response to those sample complaints or allegations on the part of the authorities to which those sample complaints or allegations were reported, including whether there is any evidence of attempts on the part of those authorities to obstruct, prevent or interfere with the proper investigation of such complaints.
3. In the case of complaints or allegations being examined, to examine and report also on the nature of the response to any other complaints or allegations made by the complainant, including any such complaints or allegations made before 1 January 1975.
4. To select a representative sample of cases when the Archdiocesan and other Church and public and State authorities had knowledge of or strong and clear suspicion of or reasonable concern regarding sexual abuse involving clergy operating under the aegis of the Archdiocese of Dublin.
5. To establish the response of the Archdiocesan and other Church and public and State authorities to those sample cases.
6. To establish the levels of communication that prevailed between the Archdiocesan and the other Church authorities and public and State authorities with regard to those sample complaints, allegations, knowledge, reasonable concern or strong and clear suspicion.
7. The Commission shall conclude its investigation and submit a full and final written report to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform before xxxx xxxx, setting out the facts established by it in relation to the matters referred to it for investigation under paragraphs 1 to 6 above, based on the evidence it receives. The Minister shall cause the report to be published as soon as possible after it is submitted to him, subject to the requirements of section 38 of the Commissions of Investigation Act, 2004.
These Terms of Reference are comprehensive and strong and the statutory powers of the Commissions of Investigation Act provide the Commission with all it needs to see that no one is allowed to obstruct its work in any way and anyone failing to co-operate will be guilty of a criminal offence.
The Commission will not investigate how every allegation made against every priest has been handled by either Church, public or State authorities. Paragraph 1 requires the Commission to select a representative sample of complaints or allegations of clerical child sexual abuse. Those of us - Colm O’Gorman, Marie Collins, Deirdre Fitzpatrick and myself - who have worked with Minister McDowell and his Departmental officials have been assured that anyone wishing to make an initial statement to the Commission with regard to an allegation or allegations made between 1 January 1975 to 1 May 2004 will be welcome to do so. The statements may be made in writing or through the Commission’s legal representatives. Along with these statements, the Commission will also have access to any Church, public or State authorities’ files as it requires. Having a broad initial view of all allegations brought to its attention it will then select a representative sample for further investigation.
Like the Ferns Inquiry, this Commission is not just investigating how allegations against priests were handled by the Catholic Archdiocese but by other public and State authorities too where evidence exists that such allegations were brought to their attention.
Paragraph 3 in the Terms of Reference is very important. It means that if the Commission is investigating the response to an allegation made against a priest after 1 January 1975 it should also examine the response to any other allegations made against the same priest, even if those allegations were made prior to 1 January 1975, thus allowing the Commission to be informed about any allegations and the response to them made before 1 January 1975.
The Terms of Reference fall down somewhat on Paragraph 7. It is most regrettable that Minister McDowell has insisted on putting an 18 month time frame on the Commission’s work. Firstly remember it took the Minister over 3 years to set up the Inquiry. It is true that the Commission of Investigations Act requires the Minister to set a date by which the final report must be submitted - though this is the Minister’s own legislation – but this does not prohibit the Minister from including in the Terms of Reference a commitment to extend the Commission’s time frame if the Commission determines for itself it needs more time in order to conduct a proper investigation.
It is not for the Minister or his officials to determine how long the Commission will need to do its work. I have listened to Mr McDowell and his officials tell us over the last 3 years how long it would take them to get the Commission of Investigations Bill through the Oireachtas, how long it would take them to draft Terms of Reference, how long it would take them to secure resources for this Commission from the Department of Finance, how long it would take them to find a Chairperson and other staff, how long it would take them to secure accommodation from the OPW, and on every occasion they got it wrong. If they can’t determine accurately how long it will take them to do their own jobs how well placed are they to say how long the Commission will need to do its job. They have not met any of their own time frames in setting up this Commission yet they are inappropriately confident in determining how much time is needed for the Commission to do its work. We do not know what the political landscape will look like in 18 months time and it is less than satisfactory that this Commission is not guaranteed all the time may need to do its work.
In the Terms of Reference for the Ferns Inquiry it states very clearly that in the event of the Inquiry not producing a final report within 12 months, the Inquiry will publish an interim report and indicate a date for the Inquiry’s final report. Very clearly the Inquiry was left to determine for itself how long it considered it needed to complete its work and it is a great pity that the Minister and his officials did not learn from the Ferns experience despite promising to do so all the way through.
Now we are left to ‘hope’ that the time frame does not in any way limit the effectiveness of the Inquiry and given that what we are ultimately about is enhancing standards of child protection in this country it is unfortunate that this loop hole has been left in place.
Tuesday, November 8, 2005
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
IRISH INDEPENDENT 26 10 05
I was more than a little surprised to hear the Taoiseach Bertie Ahern announce in the Dail the morning after the Ferns Report was published that he was still committed to an Inquiry into the Catholic Archdiocese of Dublin. I wasn't aware he was even interested. Indeed Mr Ahern's comments on a Dublin Inquiry were the first such comments he has made on the subject since he rejected a request for an Inquiry back in 1998.
By that time there was already enough information in the public domain to cause concern about the Catholic Church's practice of moving priests against whom allegations of child sexual abuse had been made onto new parishes. I know that because I helped put it there. This practice had the very obvious effect of putting other children at risk of abuse from priests already known to be a danger to them.
It was on that basis that I wrote to the Taoiseach in March 1998 calling for an Inquiry into the way allegations against priests had been handled. The Taoiseach rejected my request on the following grounds:
a) The Church is not a public body.
b) Tribunals of Inquiry can only be established into definite matters of urgent public concern.
c) It would be unfair to focus on the Catholic Church and they might challenge it in the courts.
d) Such an Inquiry would be so huge it would be ineffective.
In response I ask:
a) How was it subsequently possible to establish the Ferns Inquiry if the church not being a public body was such an issue?
b) How can the sexual abuse of children and its subsequent cover up by anyone not be described as a definite matter of urgent public concern?
c) Why would it be unfair to focus on the handling of allegations against priests after so many allegations were in the public domain but not unfair to have an Inquiry into the Irish Amateur Swimming Association after only two coaches had been the subject of similar allegations?
d) If the Taoiseach realised as far back as 1998 that the number of possible allegations to be investigated was so huge why is he claiming to be so surprised this week at the extent of child sexual abuse by priests in the Diocese of Ferns?
The Taoiseach has correctly and speedily anticipated the public outrage at the findings of the Ferns Report and now he’s jumping on the back of that outrage promising inquires and “audits” nationwide. Never underestimate a populist!
Now the Ferns Report has been published. It represents excellent work by the Inquiry team and details not only shocking accounts of the sexual abuse to which so many children were subjected but consistent facilitation of that abuse by the Diocesan Bishops' practice of protecting the priest and the institution of the Church instead of the children.
Anyone who thinks this outrageous scandal is unique and probably not repeated elsewhere needs to wise up - fast. There have been two Grand Jury investigations into the Archdioceses of Boston and Philadelphia in the United States. The Boston report was published in 2003 and eventually led to the resignation of Cardinal Law and the Philadelphia report was published in September this year. Both make similar reading to the Ferns report and would make any decent thinking person’s blood boil.
In October 2002 I attended my first meeting (along with Colm O’Gorman, Marie Collins and Deirdre Fitzpatrick) at the Department of Justice Equality and Law Reform with reference to an Inquiry into how allegations against priests were handled in the Catholic Archdiocese of Dublin. We met with Minister McDowell and he was very keen to set up a new form of public inquiry that would be available to investigate urgent matters of public concern as and when they arose. The Minister made it clear that this new mechanism of inquiry would be more suitable than a tribunal of inquiry.
We agreed to patiently and publicly support the Minister as he set about providing the legislative basis for this new form of inquiry. Nine months later, in July 2003, the Minister published the Commissions of Investigations Bill with a view to bringing his legislation before the Dail.
Seven months after that, in February 2004, we had another meeting with the Minister to ask where his legislation was. The Minister assured us that this legislation was a high priority for him and that he was doing everything possible to get it onto the statute books. He also promised that other preparatory work (Terms of Reference / Accommodation / Chairperson & Staff / Resources) would be attended to while legislation was going through various Dail stages in order not to cause delays when legislation passed. He told us that he saw no reason why the Commission of Inquiry into the Archdiocese of Dublin could not start its work in September or October 2004 if this legislation was passed before the summer recess.
In the following weeks Colm O'Gorman, Marie Collins and I met with Labour and Fine Gael opposition leaders and their Justice spokespersons to ensure that any concerns they had about the legislation would be raised and addressed efficiently and without undue delay. They were happy to help in this regard.
We then met with officials at the Department of Justice Equality and Law Reform in October 2004. The Commission of Investigations Act 2004 was now on the statute books, some two years after the Cardinal Secrets programme. None of the other preparatory work as promised by the Minister had been done. In fact departmental officials were just commencing this work specifically looking at possible Terms of Reference for the Inquiry.
Again in February of this year we met with the same officials. More work was being done on the Terms of Reference but there was no confirmation of a Chairperson, Accommodation or other Resources for this Inquiry. In July of this year I had a chance meeting with the Minister during which he informed me that funding for this Inquiry had been secured from the Department of Finance but changes had been made to the Terms of Reference. We met with the Minister’s officials soon after that where we expressed considerable concern at some of those changes. We also expressed our disappointment that still no progress had been made on outstanding issues.
Then within one hour of the Ferns Report being published I had a phone call from one of the Minister’s officials attempting to reassure me that work on setting up the Dublin Inquiry was progressing – except there had been no progress. I’m not that easily reassured. I delivered a letter to the Minister’s office later that evening requesting an urgent meeting in order to move the Dublin Inquiry along.
I can only hope that the part of the fallout from the Ferns Report is an evident doubling of efforts by Minister McDowell and his Departmental officials in bringing about the Dublin Inquiry. We have had 10 years of revelations within Dublin and no effective response from the state authorities. It is vitally important to establish to what extent the systems and practices which led to so many children in Ferns being sexually abused by so many priests exist elsewhere – and the next port of call is Dublin. For many people a similar Inquiry and report is the only justice they are going to get.
By that time there was already enough information in the public domain to cause concern about the Catholic Church's practice of moving priests against whom allegations of child sexual abuse had been made onto new parishes. I know that because I helped put it there. This practice had the very obvious effect of putting other children at risk of abuse from priests already known to be a danger to them.
It was on that basis that I wrote to the Taoiseach in March 1998 calling for an Inquiry into the way allegations against priests had been handled. The Taoiseach rejected my request on the following grounds:
a) The Church is not a public body.
b) Tribunals of Inquiry can only be established into definite matters of urgent public concern.
c) It would be unfair to focus on the Catholic Church and they might challenge it in the courts.
d) Such an Inquiry would be so huge it would be ineffective.
In response I ask:
a) How was it subsequently possible to establish the Ferns Inquiry if the church not being a public body was such an issue?
b) How can the sexual abuse of children and its subsequent cover up by anyone not be described as a definite matter of urgent public concern?
c) Why would it be unfair to focus on the handling of allegations against priests after so many allegations were in the public domain but not unfair to have an Inquiry into the Irish Amateur Swimming Association after only two coaches had been the subject of similar allegations?
d) If the Taoiseach realised as far back as 1998 that the number of possible allegations to be investigated was so huge why is he claiming to be so surprised this week at the extent of child sexual abuse by priests in the Diocese of Ferns?
The Taoiseach has correctly and speedily anticipated the public outrage at the findings of the Ferns Report and now he’s jumping on the back of that outrage promising inquires and “audits” nationwide. Never underestimate a populist!
Now the Ferns Report has been published. It represents excellent work by the Inquiry team and details not only shocking accounts of the sexual abuse to which so many children were subjected but consistent facilitation of that abuse by the Diocesan Bishops' practice of protecting the priest and the institution of the Church instead of the children.
Anyone who thinks this outrageous scandal is unique and probably not repeated elsewhere needs to wise up - fast. There have been two Grand Jury investigations into the Archdioceses of Boston and Philadelphia in the United States. The Boston report was published in 2003 and eventually led to the resignation of Cardinal Law and the Philadelphia report was published in September this year. Both make similar reading to the Ferns report and would make any decent thinking person’s blood boil.
In October 2002 I attended my first meeting (along with Colm O’Gorman, Marie Collins and Deirdre Fitzpatrick) at the Department of Justice Equality and Law Reform with reference to an Inquiry into how allegations against priests were handled in the Catholic Archdiocese of Dublin. We met with Minister McDowell and he was very keen to set up a new form of public inquiry that would be available to investigate urgent matters of public concern as and when they arose. The Minister made it clear that this new mechanism of inquiry would be more suitable than a tribunal of inquiry.
We agreed to patiently and publicly support the Minister as he set about providing the legislative basis for this new form of inquiry. Nine months later, in July 2003, the Minister published the Commissions of Investigations Bill with a view to bringing his legislation before the Dail.
Seven months after that, in February 2004, we had another meeting with the Minister to ask where his legislation was. The Minister assured us that this legislation was a high priority for him and that he was doing everything possible to get it onto the statute books. He also promised that other preparatory work (Terms of Reference / Accommodation / Chairperson & Staff / Resources) would be attended to while legislation was going through various Dail stages in order not to cause delays when legislation passed. He told us that he saw no reason why the Commission of Inquiry into the Archdiocese of Dublin could not start its work in September or October 2004 if this legislation was passed before the summer recess.
In the following weeks Colm O'Gorman, Marie Collins and I met with Labour and Fine Gael opposition leaders and their Justice spokespersons to ensure that any concerns they had about the legislation would be raised and addressed efficiently and without undue delay. They were happy to help in this regard.
We then met with officials at the Department of Justice Equality and Law Reform in October 2004. The Commission of Investigations Act 2004 was now on the statute books, some two years after the Cardinal Secrets programme. None of the other preparatory work as promised by the Minister had been done. In fact departmental officials were just commencing this work specifically looking at possible Terms of Reference for the Inquiry.
Again in February of this year we met with the same officials. More work was being done on the Terms of Reference but there was no confirmation of a Chairperson, Accommodation or other Resources for this Inquiry. In July of this year I had a chance meeting with the Minister during which he informed me that funding for this Inquiry had been secured from the Department of Finance but changes had been made to the Terms of Reference. We met with the Minister’s officials soon after that where we expressed considerable concern at some of those changes. We also expressed our disappointment that still no progress had been made on outstanding issues.
Then within one hour of the Ferns Report being published I had a phone call from one of the Minister’s officials attempting to reassure me that work on setting up the Dublin Inquiry was progressing – except there had been no progress. I’m not that easily reassured. I delivered a letter to the Minister’s office later that evening requesting an urgent meeting in order to move the Dublin Inquiry along.
I can only hope that the part of the fallout from the Ferns Report is an evident doubling of efforts by Minister McDowell and his Departmental officials in bringing about the Dublin Inquiry. We have had 10 years of revelations within Dublin and no effective response from the state authorities. It is vitally important to establish to what extent the systems and practices which led to so many children in Ferns being sexually abused by so many priests exist elsewhere – and the next port of call is Dublin. For many people a similar Inquiry and report is the only justice they are going to get.
Tuesday, June 7, 2005
EVENING HERALD 07 06 05
In October 2002 RTE screened the award winning Prime Time Special Cardinal Secrets. This programme detailed the sexual abuse of eight children by priests in the Catholic Archdiocese of Dublin and laid bare the Diocese's mishandling of allegations of abuse.
The response to Cardinal Secrets was much public and media outrage and the Minister for Justice Equality and Law Reform Michael McDowell TD promised a full statutory inquiry into how allegations of child sexual abuse by priests had been handled by church and other authorities. Along with Colm O'Gorman, Director of One In Four, I met the Minister at that time and he was very keen to set up a new form of public inquiry that would be available to investigate urgent matters of public concern as and when they arose. The Minister made it clear that this new mechanism of inquiry would be more suitable than a tribunal of inquiry.
We agreed to patiently and publicly support the Minister as he set about providing the legislative basis for this new form of inquiry. Nine months later, in July 2003, the Minister published the Commissions of Investigations Bill with a view to bringing his legislation before the Dail.
Seven months after that, in February 2004, we had another meeting with the Minister to ask where his legislation was. The Minister assured us that this legislation was a high priority for him and that he was doing everything possible to get it onto the statute books. He also promised that other preparatory work (Terms of Reference / Accommodation / Chairperson & Staff / Resources) would be attended to while legislation was going through various Dail stages in order not to cause delays when legislation passed. He told us that he saw no reason why the Commission of Inquiry into the Archdiocese of Dublin could not start its work in September or October 2004 if this legislation was passed before the summer recess.
In the following weeks Colm O'Gorman, Marie Collins and I met with Labour and Fine Gael opposition leaders and their Justice spokespersons to ensure that any concerns they had about the legislation would be raised and addressed efficiently and without undue delay. They were happy to help in this regard.
We then met with officials at the Department of Justice Equality and Law Reform in October 2004. The Commission of Investigations Act 2004 was now on the statute books, some two years after the Cardinal Secrets programme. None of the other preparatory work as promised by the Minister had been done. In fact departmental officials were just commencing this work specifically looking at possible Terms of Reference for the Inquiry.
Again in February of this year we met with the same officials. More work was being done on the Terms of Reference but there was no confirmation of a Chairperson, Accommodation or other Resources for this Inquiry. A submission was made in February to the Department of Finance to secure resources for the Inquiry. No resources have been made available to date.
This government has proven that it can both legislate and spend taxpayers’ money
speedily when it wants to, and Minister McDowell has benefited politically from being seen to respond to the Cardinal Secrets programme positively. After 2 years and 8 months those of us who have worked hard and waited quietly for this Inquiry are fast running out of patience.
The response to Cardinal Secrets was much public and media outrage and the Minister for Justice Equality and Law Reform Michael McDowell TD promised a full statutory inquiry into how allegations of child sexual abuse by priests had been handled by church and other authorities. Along with Colm O'Gorman, Director of One In Four, I met the Minister at that time and he was very keen to set up a new form of public inquiry that would be available to investigate urgent matters of public concern as and when they arose. The Minister made it clear that this new mechanism of inquiry would be more suitable than a tribunal of inquiry.
We agreed to patiently and publicly support the Minister as he set about providing the legislative basis for this new form of inquiry. Nine months later, in July 2003, the Minister published the Commissions of Investigations Bill with a view to bringing his legislation before the Dail.
Seven months after that, in February 2004, we had another meeting with the Minister to ask where his legislation was. The Minister assured us that this legislation was a high priority for him and that he was doing everything possible to get it onto the statute books. He also promised that other preparatory work (Terms of Reference / Accommodation / Chairperson & Staff / Resources) would be attended to while legislation was going through various Dail stages in order not to cause delays when legislation passed. He told us that he saw no reason why the Commission of Inquiry into the Archdiocese of Dublin could not start its work in September or October 2004 if this legislation was passed before the summer recess.
In the following weeks Colm O'Gorman, Marie Collins and I met with Labour and Fine Gael opposition leaders and their Justice spokespersons to ensure that any concerns they had about the legislation would be raised and addressed efficiently and without undue delay. They were happy to help in this regard.
We then met with officials at the Department of Justice Equality and Law Reform in October 2004. The Commission of Investigations Act 2004 was now on the statute books, some two years after the Cardinal Secrets programme. None of the other preparatory work as promised by the Minister had been done. In fact departmental officials were just commencing this work specifically looking at possible Terms of Reference for the Inquiry.
Again in February of this year we met with the same officials. More work was being done on the Terms of Reference but there was no confirmation of a Chairperson, Accommodation or other Resources for this Inquiry. A submission was made in February to the Department of Finance to secure resources for the Inquiry. No resources have been made available to date.
This government has proven that it can both legislate and spend taxpayers’ money
speedily when it wants to, and Minister McDowell has benefited politically from being seen to respond to the Cardinal Secrets programme positively. After 2 years and 8 months those of us who have worked hard and waited quietly for this Inquiry are fast running out of patience.
Wednesday, April 28, 2004
EVENING HERALD 28 04 04
Let me start by wishing the former Archbishop of Dublin, Cardinal Desmond Connell, a long, happy and healthy retirement. I sincerely hope he takes the time to enjoy doing the things he likes to do now that his retirement from office will afford him more personal time. Both Cardinal Connell, and indeed the former Archbishop of Armagh, Cardinal Cathal Daly, have both apologised many times for the hurt caused to victims of child sexual abuse by catholic priests and religious. And Cardinal Connell has also apologised for the way in which the church chose to handle allegations of clerical child sexual abuse. Forgiveness may come later, but for now I can accept such apologies - as far as they go.
Archbishop Diarmuid Martin says history will see that Cardinal Connell acted in accordance with his own conscience. Quite how history is meant to judge whether anyone ever acted in accordance with his or her conscience is beyond me. It may well suit the incoming Archbishop of Dublin to wait for the hand of history to bestow a glowing reference on the outgoing Archbishop of Dublin but in the meantime there is to be a state inquiry, if that's okay with both of them, and what is more important is whether Cardinal Connell and others in the church acted in accordance with the laws of the land, as the rest of us are required to do.
People have asked me many times in recent months what I think of Archbishop Martin and my answer is always the same - I'll tell you when I see the extent to which the Archdiocese of Dublin co-operates with the upcoming inquiry under his leadership. This inquiry will be a real indicator as to whether or not the new Archbishop is 'the breath of fresh air' some people are hailing him as. It will also indicate whether or not I am foolish to accept the Cardinal's apologies - because if he doesn't co-operate fully and honestly then such apologies amount to nothing.
Archbishop Martin has said he will sell whatever assets are needed in order to pay compensation to victims of child sexual abuse by priests. Some twenty acres of prime land around Clonliffe College has been mentioned which must be worth millions of Euro. I suspect the Archbishop was referring to the compensation being paid out as a result of abuses committed by diocesan clergy. But it would also be a welcome start to his period in office if he took the time to liase with his colleagues in the religious orders and if together they agreed to revisit the disgusting deal these orders have made with the government which leaves the taxpayer picking up the lion's share of the compensation bill to be paid as a result of abuses committed by Christian brothers and other religious.
As it stands the financial liability of the religious orders has been limited by the government, in an act of political expediency, to 127million Euro leaving the taxpayer to pick up the balance which the Comptroller and Auditor General as estimated will be several hundred million Euro more. How can it be right to apologise for the wrongs one has committed but leave it to others to foot any subsequent bill ? Let the diocesan authorities and the religious orders make an offer to the outgoing (it's only a matter of time) Minister of Education Mr Noel Dempsey to put this matter right. This too will help the rest of us to distinguish between empty words and genuine remorse.
Archbishop Diarmuid Martin says history will see that Cardinal Connell acted in accordance with his own conscience. Quite how history is meant to judge whether anyone ever acted in accordance with his or her conscience is beyond me. It may well suit the incoming Archbishop of Dublin to wait for the hand of history to bestow a glowing reference on the outgoing Archbishop of Dublin but in the meantime there is to be a state inquiry, if that's okay with both of them, and what is more important is whether Cardinal Connell and others in the church acted in accordance with the laws of the land, as the rest of us are required to do.
People have asked me many times in recent months what I think of Archbishop Martin and my answer is always the same - I'll tell you when I see the extent to which the Archdiocese of Dublin co-operates with the upcoming inquiry under his leadership. This inquiry will be a real indicator as to whether or not the new Archbishop is 'the breath of fresh air' some people are hailing him as. It will also indicate whether or not I am foolish to accept the Cardinal's apologies - because if he doesn't co-operate fully and honestly then such apologies amount to nothing.
Archbishop Martin has said he will sell whatever assets are needed in order to pay compensation to victims of child sexual abuse by priests. Some twenty acres of prime land around Clonliffe College has been mentioned which must be worth millions of Euro. I suspect the Archbishop was referring to the compensation being paid out as a result of abuses committed by diocesan clergy. But it would also be a welcome start to his period in office if he took the time to liase with his colleagues in the religious orders and if together they agreed to revisit the disgusting deal these orders have made with the government which leaves the taxpayer picking up the lion's share of the compensation bill to be paid as a result of abuses committed by Christian brothers and other religious.
As it stands the financial liability of the religious orders has been limited by the government, in an act of political expediency, to 127million Euro leaving the taxpayer to pick up the balance which the Comptroller and Auditor General as estimated will be several hundred million Euro more. How can it be right to apologise for the wrongs one has committed but leave it to others to foot any subsequent bill ? Let the diocesan authorities and the religious orders make an offer to the outgoing (it's only a matter of time) Minister of Education Mr Noel Dempsey to put this matter right. This too will help the rest of us to distinguish between empty words and genuine remorse.
Monday, February 2, 2004
EVENING HERALD 02 02 04
Despite all we know, or think we know, about child sexual abuse and the Catholic Church in Ireland it is still shocking to read a report into the 'care' of children by 'Religious' which contains words like Rape, Starvation, Buggery, Deprivation, Cruelty and Brutality. And while this Commission of Inquiry still has much work to do under it's new Chairperson Mr. Justice Sean Ryan, the outgoing Chairperson Justice Mary Laffoy found the testimony of witnesses to be truthful and honest and their reasons for speaking to the Commission to be wholly altruistic.
In contrast Justice Laffoy is critical of the way the Religious Congregations look to have allegations made against them subject to strict proof of facts even where the allegation made is a matter of historical record in the Department of Education's own files. She gives a very compelling example of a Complainant to the Inquiry who alleges that she was not properly fed in an Institution in the 1940s. It is a matter of record that during the period of the Complainant's residence in the Institution, the Medical Inspector of the Department found that the food was very bad, there had been a curtailment in diet and the children had not put on any weight. Records show that the Department sought, and got, the removal of the Resident Manager of the Institution by the relevant Religious Congregation. Yet today that same Congregation, in its response to the Laffoy Commission, is requiring that details of nutritional standards of the time be the subject of expert testimony. Justice Laffoy's view is that if the Religious Congregations really had a genuine desire to co-operate then admitting to matters of indisputable fact would be the way to do so. She also points out that the if the Congregations continue as they are then there are implications for the duration and cost of the Inquiry.
Justice Laffoy is also not satisfied that since the Commission's establishment it has received the level of co-operation it is entitled to expect to receive from the Department of Education and Science and its Minister, Noel Dempsey TD. It has experienced difficulty in securing compliance with its statutory requests by the Department. On two occasions she has had to direct that the Secretary General of the Department to attend the Commission because of the Department's non co-operation. The Department, she says, has not adopted a constructive approach to its role in the Inquiry. In any Government with standards this would be enough to have Minister Dempsey spending more time with his family by now. If he were not so arrogant and self serving he would resign. But in the poor standards of an Ahern led Government, which would have the 'honest decent' (and corrupt) Ray Bourke as Foreign Minister if it could, Mr Dempsey is fit for office. It is a scandal it itself that a Minister and his Department have been found by an independent and respected High Court Judge to have failed to deliver their co-operation to this Inquiry which she is entitled, in law, to expect. And it is testament to the further lowering of standards in political life (courtesy of the party that brought us Haughey, Lawlor and Burke) that the Minister's failure has not prompted Taoiseach Bertie Ahern to immediately remove sponsorship of the Commission from Dempsey and his Department. The Government says it is listening to those victims who gave evidence to the Laffoy Commission and to the organisations who support them but everyone of those organisations, and it's not often they agree on anything, has demanded that sponsorship of this Commission be removed from the Department of Education and Science and the time for the Taoiseach to act accordingly is NOW.
In contrast Justice Laffoy is critical of the way the Religious Congregations look to have allegations made against them subject to strict proof of facts even where the allegation made is a matter of historical record in the Department of Education's own files. She gives a very compelling example of a Complainant to the Inquiry who alleges that she was not properly fed in an Institution in the 1940s. It is a matter of record that during the period of the Complainant's residence in the Institution, the Medical Inspector of the Department found that the food was very bad, there had been a curtailment in diet and the children had not put on any weight. Records show that the Department sought, and got, the removal of the Resident Manager of the Institution by the relevant Religious Congregation. Yet today that same Congregation, in its response to the Laffoy Commission, is requiring that details of nutritional standards of the time be the subject of expert testimony. Justice Laffoy's view is that if the Religious Congregations really had a genuine desire to co-operate then admitting to matters of indisputable fact would be the way to do so. She also points out that the if the Congregations continue as they are then there are implications for the duration and cost of the Inquiry.
Justice Laffoy is also not satisfied that since the Commission's establishment it has received the level of co-operation it is entitled to expect to receive from the Department of Education and Science and its Minister, Noel Dempsey TD. It has experienced difficulty in securing compliance with its statutory requests by the Department. On two occasions she has had to direct that the Secretary General of the Department to attend the Commission because of the Department's non co-operation. The Department, she says, has not adopted a constructive approach to its role in the Inquiry. In any Government with standards this would be enough to have Minister Dempsey spending more time with his family by now. If he were not so arrogant and self serving he would resign. But in the poor standards of an Ahern led Government, which would have the 'honest decent' (and corrupt) Ray Bourke as Foreign Minister if it could, Mr Dempsey is fit for office. It is a scandal it itself that a Minister and his Department have been found by an independent and respected High Court Judge to have failed to deliver their co-operation to this Inquiry which she is entitled, in law, to expect. And it is testament to the further lowering of standards in political life (courtesy of the party that brought us Haughey, Lawlor and Burke) that the Minister's failure has not prompted Taoiseach Bertie Ahern to immediately remove sponsorship of the Commission from Dempsey and his Department. The Government says it is listening to those victims who gave evidence to the Laffoy Commission and to the organisations who support them but everyone of those organisations, and it's not often they agree on anything, has demanded that sponsorship of this Commission be removed from the Department of Education and Science and the time for the Taoiseach to act accordingly is NOW.
Sunday, May 3, 1998
SUNDAY WORLD 03 05 98
By the time I was four years old Father Ivan Payne, ordained a priest less than twelve months, had already started abusing other young children. When this stark fact was finally established in Court 24 at the Dublin Circuit Criminal Court last January the sheer awfulness of it astounded me, even though to some extent the fact itself came as no surprise. It occurred to me that there was almost an inevitability that all that was required was for the paths of our lives to cross and once that had happened we would both be effected at some stage in our lives in a manner that would leave both us, and others, devastated. For me the devastation set in shortly after I first knew Father Payne back in 1977. For the priest himself, it seemed to come much later, in the dock of Court 24 last Tuesday afternoon, to be more precise.
Father Payne made a great impression on me back in the late seventies. As a young altar boy, with a strong vocation to the priesthood, serving Mass at Christ the King Church in Cabra, the young priest was like a breath of fresh air in the area. He was very friendly, kind, interested in young people and always greeted me with a broad smile. In those early days his disregard for the black suit and clerical collar, opting instead for bright casual shirts, grey trousers and smart blazers and jackets gave him a distinctive edge the other priests just didn’t have. He was very popular in the area and was thought by many to be very charismatic. Within a short time I came to know another Father Payne. Father Payne the abuser. He introduced me to fear, anxiety, shame, guilt and nervousness and by the time the abuse had ended, almost three years later, these characteristics were as much a part of me as any of my physical attributes. And what’s more, I felt that the fact of having been abused made me so different to school friends and other peers, that this difference in itself was as visible to people as any part of my appearance. I thought that everyone could somehow see that I was not normal, I became paranoid and hated when I became the centre of attention.
Last Tuesday Father Payne was, at last, the centre of attention. As I sat at the back of the courtroom with other people he had abused, I was quite taken aback when Michael McDowell S C, defending, said he had one more witness to call and the still-distinguished-looking priest took his place on the stand. I tried to look up but quickly realised that by doing so it was difficult to avoid making eye contact with the priest so all I could do was look to the ground as he spoke. Up to now I had stolen the occasional glance at him as he sat alone in the corner of the room and it gave me an horrendous feeling of sadness to see the man I had once held in such high regard look so broken. And broken he sounded. Although he didn’t actually break down he came close to it and his voice was shaky and emotional. I have worked hard to try and put my feelings of guilt back where they well and truly belong, but some times it feels like I’ve made no progress at all. Listening to Father Payne speak, my feelings of guilt came flooding back. If I had said nothing he might not be the broken man sitting in court now. For people who have never been abused this is probably very difficult to understand. They say I should not feel guilty; I know I should not feel guilty, even Father Payne told us that on Tuesday; but feelings are not necessarily subject to rational and my heart does not always agree with my head.
I am at a loss to know what to make of his apology. To me he certainly had the appearance of a man full of remorse, but when I first got to know him I soon learned that there was more to this man than his appearance. As I listened to him speak in court, I had no way of assessing whether this was the nice amiable Father Payne sincerely sorry for his actions or the manipulative abuser using all those around him, including us, again, to benefit his own situation. I stress that I am not in any way accusing him of being insincere, but a small part of his dreadful legacy is that he has left me such that I have no way of knowing whether he is or not.
It was disappointing, though maybe understandable, to hear that we have to wait nearly two months to hear Judge Cyril Kelly’s decision following the two days sentence hearing. There was much discussion about the different types of paedophilia, the various types of treatment available and their diverse success rates. I am not looking for revenge in the form of the longest possible sentence. Like others I have presented my case to the appropriate authorities and I now look to those authorities to do the right thing by all concerned. My hope is that when I listen to Judge Kelly deliver his judgement and explain the reasons for it, that I will be able to walk away feeling that justice has been done.
Father Payne made a great impression on me back in the late seventies. As a young altar boy, with a strong vocation to the priesthood, serving Mass at Christ the King Church in Cabra, the young priest was like a breath of fresh air in the area. He was very friendly, kind, interested in young people and always greeted me with a broad smile. In those early days his disregard for the black suit and clerical collar, opting instead for bright casual shirts, grey trousers and smart blazers and jackets gave him a distinctive edge the other priests just didn’t have. He was very popular in the area and was thought by many to be very charismatic. Within a short time I came to know another Father Payne. Father Payne the abuser. He introduced me to fear, anxiety, shame, guilt and nervousness and by the time the abuse had ended, almost three years later, these characteristics were as much a part of me as any of my physical attributes. And what’s more, I felt that the fact of having been abused made me so different to school friends and other peers, that this difference in itself was as visible to people as any part of my appearance. I thought that everyone could somehow see that I was not normal, I became paranoid and hated when I became the centre of attention.
Last Tuesday Father Payne was, at last, the centre of attention. As I sat at the back of the courtroom with other people he had abused, I was quite taken aback when Michael McDowell S C, defending, said he had one more witness to call and the still-distinguished-looking priest took his place on the stand. I tried to look up but quickly realised that by doing so it was difficult to avoid making eye contact with the priest so all I could do was look to the ground as he spoke. Up to now I had stolen the occasional glance at him as he sat alone in the corner of the room and it gave me an horrendous feeling of sadness to see the man I had once held in such high regard look so broken. And broken he sounded. Although he didn’t actually break down he came close to it and his voice was shaky and emotional. I have worked hard to try and put my feelings of guilt back where they well and truly belong, but some times it feels like I’ve made no progress at all. Listening to Father Payne speak, my feelings of guilt came flooding back. If I had said nothing he might not be the broken man sitting in court now. For people who have never been abused this is probably very difficult to understand. They say I should not feel guilty; I know I should not feel guilty, even Father Payne told us that on Tuesday; but feelings are not necessarily subject to rational and my heart does not always agree with my head.
I am at a loss to know what to make of his apology. To me he certainly had the appearance of a man full of remorse, but when I first got to know him I soon learned that there was more to this man than his appearance. As I listened to him speak in court, I had no way of assessing whether this was the nice amiable Father Payne sincerely sorry for his actions or the manipulative abuser using all those around him, including us, again, to benefit his own situation. I stress that I am not in any way accusing him of being insincere, but a small part of his dreadful legacy is that he has left me such that I have no way of knowing whether he is or not.
It was disappointing, though maybe understandable, to hear that we have to wait nearly two months to hear Judge Cyril Kelly’s decision following the two days sentence hearing. There was much discussion about the different types of paedophilia, the various types of treatment available and their diverse success rates. I am not looking for revenge in the form of the longest possible sentence. Like others I have presented my case to the appropriate authorities and I now look to those authorities to do the right thing by all concerned. My hope is that when I listen to Judge Kelly deliver his judgement and explain the reasons for it, that I will be able to walk away feeling that justice has been done.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)