The Catholic Church's policy in abuse cases might be clever law, but it's poor Christianity, argues Patsy McGarry, Religious Affairs Correspondent
It has been an awful year for those of us determined (personally, professionally, or both) to hold a "benefit of the doubt" attitude where the Catholic Church's handling of clerical child sex abuse is concerned.
We want to believe bishops when they say that they have been on a steep learning curve and that was why they made such mistakes.
We want to believe their contrition when they ask forgiveness for same, and that they mean it when they say the priority from now on must be the victims and their families. But it has become more and more difficult to take them at their word.
For instance, the revelation in this newspaper last February that 23 or 24 of Ireland's 26 Catholic dioceses had taken out insurance between 1987 and 1990 to cover them in the event of claims arising from clerical child sex abuse suggested a much earlier awareness of the problem by the bishops than most of us would have expected.
The further discovery that they had been covered for claims up to £200,000 (€253,947) per case, including legal costs, (at late 1980s prices) suggests that not only were they aware of the problem, but that they were also aware then of the potentially devastating effects of this abuse on a victim's life.
Confronted with such evidence, it is hard to continue to suspend disbelief. It is also very much more difficult to sustain a "benefit of the doubt" approach. But what makes it almost impossible is some bishops' continuing reflex response of "reach for the lawyer" when approached by a victim.
It is impossible to accommodate the contradiction implicit in this. On the one hand, we have expressions of compassion and sensitivity by bishops towards victims and their families while simultaneously they unleash the Rottweilers of the legal profession on such people. Such lawyers do what such lawyers must - as they are trained to - in the best interests of their client. Who expects anything different? The bishops?
At least one among the members of the Irish Episcopal Conference has recognised the danger of lawyers in the context. At a Western Theological Institute conference in Knock last month, Bishop Willie Walsh said he believed lawyers should be used in such cases "as sparingly as possible". He recognised the further damage they can cause.
"On one occasion I allowed a lawyer to write a rather confrontational letter to another lawyer representing a victim. I saw simply as part of the adversarial process between the two lawyers. I foolishly perhaps did not see it as touching the relationship between myself and the victim. The letter caused significant pain to the victim and caused me much difficulty in trying to undo the damage," he said.
He added, "Many of us well know from experience that where a marriage is in difficulty that the entry of a lawyer on behalf of one party always signals the end of the marriage. Equally, when lawyers enter this area of child sexual abuse a closure that is healing for victim becomes all the more difficult."
Why is Bishop Willie Walsh unique in having gained such insight from his experiences of dealing with this fraught issue, while others among his colleagues, with so much more experience of it, appear to have learned nothing at all?
Earlier in that address last month, he said, "The reality is that we as bishops, certainly in the early stages of our response, made some dreadful mistakes which effectively increased the pain, the hurt and the anger of victims. We listened too easily to advice from lawyers both civil and canonical and seemed more concerned for the protection of the church than the protection of children. We can offer a wide variety of excuses, some of them with significant validity, others perhaps wishful thinking, but we cannot escape the terrible reality of the pain of victims of abuse."
All that is wrong with that observation is its tense. Some bishops continue to increase the pain, hurt and anger of victims. They might talk to such victims after they have received letters from solicitors - on bishops' instructions - where the victims sense they are being told, "we don't believe you".
They might talk to Mervyn Rundle and see how he felt on receipt of such a letter from solicitors on behalf of Cardinal Connell and others, before settlement was agreed last January. They might talk to Colm O'Gorman and hear his mixture of fury and humiliation on receipt of a similar solicitors' letter, on the instruction of Bishop Eamonn Walsh and the diocese of Ferns, before settlement was agreed last April.
They might talk to "Martha" and "Mary" featured in this paper during the week and see how much more determined both women have become since the receipt of a solicitors' letter of denial, instructed by Cardinal Connell.
It is simply not adequate for the Archdiocese to explain such behaviour in this instance by saying, as it did, to The Irish Times this week: "Each case is dealt with on its own merits and accordance with the legal principles applicable. It would not be appropriate for the Diocese to comment upon the legal issues involved in any particular case." When Arthur O'Hagan Solicitors who act for the Archdiocese were contacted by The Irish Times about the processing of these cases, there was no comment available. The relevant solicitor was away and no one else there wished to speak on the matter.
The bishops might talk to another two sisters abused by a priest, who is still alive. He has admitted to the abuse, but despite this, they too have received a similar letter from the solicitors, instructed by Cardinal Connell. (This case has not yet entered the public domain, but they know who they are.)
And it is simply not the case that bishops are being forced into legal action in the cases mentioned above because of insurance requirements. As disclosed last February in this newspaper, Ireland's 26 Catholic dioceses have insurance cover only for clerical child abuse incidents which occurred since 1996. All costs arising from such abuse prior to then are paid from a €10.6 million Stewardship Fund administered by the four Archbishops. It was set up using proceeds from a deal between the bishops and the Church & General Insurance company under which the latter no longer has liability for cases which occurred prior to 1996, as is the situation with all the cases referred to above.
How many more indefensible cases in relation to abuse are to be contested before relevant bishops wake up to the fact that although the practice of using solicitors in this manner might be clever law, it makes for very poor Christianity?
No one expects bishops to roll over before claims made against them in this context, but surely there are ways of dealing with the issue in a manner which suggests they really mean it when they speak of valuing each human person and which reflects more accurately what they preach.