(The Nationalist, 17 January 2003)
Why did Catholic church leaders, such as bishops and heads of religious orders, handle so badly the issue of child sex abuse by clergy? Consider these factors:
1. Confidentiality
If a church leader knew that a priest was accused of paedophilia, he probably felt obliged to keep it confidential. He might reason that otherwise his priests would not confide in him. But confidentiality must take second place to children’s protection. There are limits to confidentiality, and the governing principle must be children’s protection.
2. Forgiveness
Forgiveness is a core value of the Christian faith. Religious leaders wished to hold out the possibility of forgiveness. But forgiveness should never include allowing a paedophile back into public ministry. The risk is too great: you don’t send an alcoholic to work in a pub.
3. Bad advice
Church leaders were badly advised by psychiatrists and lawyers. Psychiatrists sometimes said that Father X had responded to treatment and could safely return to ministry. We now know that paedophilia cannot be cured; it can only be controlled. Lawyers advised against church leaders visiting parents lest this be interpreted as interference in any possible future trial.
4. The fear of scandal
Religious leaders wanted to protect the name of the clergy. But sometimes this led to truth being suppressed. This was often self-serving, and left the child open to further abuse. The failure to deal with paedophilia is now the scandal.
5. The deviousness of paedophiles
To conceal their activities paedophiles learn deviousness. They are skilled manipulators who lie with the proficiency of long practice. Religious leaders were often conned by paedophiles into questioning the truthfulness or motivation of complainants, and into giving the benefit of doubt to the accused.
6. The problem of paedophilia was not taken seriously enough.
Church leaders spoke of the priority of protecting children, but often acted otherwise. They seemed to feel it was sufficient to state the principle, without applying it.
Would clergy have acted differently if they had had children of their own? They would. If we had had women clergy the problem would not have reached its present level. Few people are more determined than a mother protecting her child.
What particularly disturbs me about the bishops’ role is that they seem to move only when driven by public opinion reacting to TV exposés. They seem motivated more by fear of negative publicity than about children’s safety.
7. The dysfunctionality of relationships and structures in the church
The paedophile problem has brought spectacularly into the open the dysfunctionality of the church’s inner relationships and structures. In the church, we do not have credible and effective structures of participation, dialogue, decision-making, accountability and subsidiarity. Furthermore, we have a deference to authority that amounts to an abdication of individual responsibility. Instead of dialogue we have dictation – as in the appointment of bishops.
(Apart altogether from the problem of paedophile clergy, this problem exists. One example is that, in a divided society like Northern Ireland, the churches – not only the Catholic Church – have failed to address the problem of sectarianism, even though it is the backdrop and the motivating power behind much of the present division. It is the virus in the bloodstream which continues to infect the body politic. Yet the churches have carried on as if Northern Ireland’s problems could adequately be explained in terms of politics, economics, class, colonialism or race, as if religion were not also part of the problem.)
The way complainants were treated showed a lack of respect not only for them but also for truth and justice. In the church we are not firmly committed to these. We don’t face problems, we fudge them, and to keep up appearances we overlook injustice. Church leadership does not operate in a climate of accountability.
There is also too much secrecy in the church, and it provides a cloak for the paedophile.
And the church is too slow to change. It grasps at every excuse not to. But it acts fast when it perceives its interests threatened.
If this dysfunctionality is not addressed, the mentality that allowed paedophilia to thrive and be concealed will remain. Can the church reform itself? I hope it will, but I fear it won’t: we don’t have the quality of leadership in the church this crisis calls for.
The Hussey commission.
Justice Gillian Hussey was invited by the bishops to carry out an “audit” of how the church had responded to sex abuse. All commentators agree that she is a person of intelligence, integrity and independence. And her commission covers the 32 counties, whereas an Irish Republic enquiry would reach only 26.
But, for two reasons, I doubt if her commission meets the need. Firstly, it depends on voluntary disclosure of documents and evidence of witnesses. I doubt this will be forthcoming, whatever may be promised. Secondly, her commission is seen as church-sponsored. With that perception, justice will not be seen to be done. A compromised report would be worse than none.
We need a comprehensive North-South State enquiry.
Without a comprehensive North-South State enquiry we will just nibble at the problem. The church does not have the credibility to sponsor an enquiry of its own. Six months ago that might have been acceptable, but it is now an opportunity lost because of delays, half-measures, non-observance of official church guidelines, and slippery public statements by church officials.
Contrast the bishops’ handling of this issue with Minister of Health, Micheál Martin’s. He met the victims, acted quickly, and his appointee, George Bermingham, has already presented his report. The bishops did not meet the victims, and their commission – admittedly one with a larger brief – has yet to begin its work.
We need an enquiry with the authority to requisition documents and to require witnesses to give evidence. I believe a State enquiry can be trusted to manage the issue of confidentiality with care so that the innocent are not falsely accused.
The media
Thank God for the media. Without them, the problem would still be concealed and the public would be in ignorance. Because of the media, parents of abused children now have a voice – and hope.
What struck me about the Prime Time programme of 16th October and part of the Late, Late Show which followed two nights later, was how Miriam O’Callaghan and Pat Kenny spoke more as puzzled and pained parents than as investigative journalists. I didn’t see them as hunting for scalps. What I saw was their (natural) incomprehension as to why the protection of children, which to them was such an obvious, basic and necessary good, and one which they had believed was a value that the church shared, now seemed, in the light of the evidence, as one which was not a priority for the church, being over-ruled by considerations of protecting the name of the clergy. They could not understand this; they tried to, but were unable.
Conclusion
For the sake of Ireland’s children, and of the Catholic church, we need to act on the teaching of Jesus Christ that ‘The truth shall make you free’. When the truth is told, accepted, and acted upon, healing can begin. That matters to the church no less than to children and parents.