THE long awaited report of the bishops' committee on how to deal with clerical child sex abuse will be broadly welcomed for two paragraphs.
These stress that "in all instances where it is known or suspected that a child has been, or is being, sexually abused by a priest or religious the matter should be reported to the civil authorities". This should also be the rule where an adult complains of past abuse in childhood.
The report should be made without delay to the senior ranking police officer for the area in which the abuse is alleged to have occurred." Where a child is the victim, or an adult's complaint involves child protection questions, the designated person in the local health board should also be informed.
These go much further than the bishops' last major statement on clerical child sex abuse after their Maynooth meeting in October.
On that occasion the committee's chairman, Bishop Forristal of Ossory, said that, when an allegation came to the church authorities' attention, a small group in each diocese, including civil and canon lawyers, would interview the person making the allegation. If satisfied that the allegation was valid, they would report it to the Garda or the RUC.
Similarly, the difficult area of confidentiality is tackled head on. The report stresses that, although some people who come forward with complaints against priests seek undertakings of confidentiality, the issue of child sex abuse is so serious that absolute undertakings should not be given, and information should be received on the basis that "only those who need to know will be told".
Many will also welcome the strength of the language used by the report to describe the sheer wickedness of child sex abuse by clerics "Instead of their special position in the church being a means through which God's care for His people is revealed, priests and religious who sexually abuse children take advantage of that position to gratify their own desires and sense of power."
At yesterday's press conference the Conference of Religious (CORI), which has been running a child protection office for the past year, announced that it had decided to set up a telephone help line for victims and their families as soon as possible. One diocese is known to be discussing with its local health board the possibility of jointly setting up a therapeutic programme for victims.
At the press conference it was also made clear that the church sees the Government's Stay Safe programme against bullying and abuse as a necessary foundation for future school based programmes to enable young people to "become aware of their right to say `no' to certain behaviour on the part of adults".
The structure, or protocol, outlined by the committee for a church response to abuse allegations is detailed and multi layered. It follows the English example in making the key man a specially appointed and trained priest to be the bishop's "delegate", who will inform the civil authorities and initiate the church's own parallel canon law procedures.
He will be helped by a "support person", who will help and facilitate those who have alleged child sex abuse and their families an "adviser", who will be available to the accused priest and an "advisory panel" of legal and child care experts, who will advise the bishop.
Some priests and social workers are wondering how efficient these procedures will be. Inside this proposed structure, problematic areas are already apparent.
The issue of the speedy removal of priests against whom allegations have been made is obviously a complex one, with the need to balance the interests of vulnerable children against an accused priest's right to privacy and a fair trial.
The Irish committee has emphasised the latter much more than its English and Welsh counterpart two years ago. It is clear that the three lawyers on the committee two civil and one canon have underlined the legal difficulties facing a bishop who wants to insist that a priest under suspicion takes "administrative leave" pending any investigation.
This recourse, which has been used frequently by Irish bishops in recent months, barely rates a mention in the report.
Mgr Alex Stenson, a committee member and one of the Irish church's leading canon lawyers said yesterday that a bishop could only impose administrative leave on a priest if at the same time he initiated a "canonical penal process" against him. He pointed to the right of a priest and any Catholic under canon law to a "good reputation" and to privacy.
The English committee appeared to have less of a problem with canon law. It stressed that administrative leave "must become a standard practice in relation to anyone suspected of abusing children, as a way of protecting children and establishing the truth".
Similarly, there is a striking contrast in the ways the Irish and English committees recommend dealing with a priest under suspicion. The English report urges that the alleged abuser should not be approached by anyone at an early stage with a view to discussing the allegations, in order to safeguard children's interests and the unimpeded course of any official investigation.
It is clear that the Irish committee was not at all happy with this method. It recommends the opposite approach, urging that the bishop or religious superior inform "without delay" the accused priest that a complaint has been made and is being dealt with.
This fine balance between the rights of children and the rights of accused clerics is clearly an area of controversy which will continue to be argued over.
However, Mgr Stenson insisted at yesterday's press conference that, even with these safeguards to protect an accused priest's rights, the proposed structures would ensure that he could be removed within 48 hours of an allegation being passed to the police from any position where he might abuse children.