Will they never learn? That two of the most senior members of the Catholic hierarchy should engage in public disagreement over the release of files from the Archdiocese of Dublin to a Government-backed commission of inquiry into allegations of rape and child sexual abuse is nothing short of extraordinary.
The dispute, which has ended up in the High Court, has pitted the former Archbishop of Dublin, Cardinal Desmond Connell against the present incumbent, Dr Diarmuid Martin.
At the heart of the matter is the carnality of a small minority of the clergy and, more importantly, the credibility of the Catholic Church when it says the rights of children who were raped and sexually abused by priests should always come first. The ventilation of a long history of orchestrated cover-ups, official denials and imposed secrecy shocked churchgoers when the extent of activity by paedophile priests became public six years ago. The Government felt compelled to establish a special commission to address public concerns. Any suggestion of a reversion to a culture of denial and concealment will do irreparable damage to the Catholic Church now.
Cardinal Connell finds himself in a distressing situation. He was required to cope with the failures of predecessors and inherited practices under canon law rules that were weighted in favour of the accused. But his treatment of a number of well-publicised abuse cases during his own ministry was inadequate. Those actions may have been constrained by the requirements of due process and legal advice, but they did not accord with specific church undertakings that it would protect and defend vulnerable children as a priority. Now, on legal advice, the cardinal is seeking to deny that documentation to the commission established to probe the nature of the church's response to accusations of clerical abuse.
Archbishop Martin, on the other hand, seems determined to draw a firm line under what happened in the past and to make all child abuse files, other than those involving sensitive insurance claims, available to the commission. As a public gesture, it presents an image of transformation and renewal; if followed through, it is an important signal that trust between church leaders and their followers can be rebuilt. He is looking only to the future, unwilling to enter a defence for the gross failure to protect children that led to 450 civil legal actions being lodged against the archdiocese.
Subject to his own avowed "humility" on this matter, the cardinal is perfectly entitled to protect his good name. He may have a valid legal case. But, the whole question of child abuse has done such enormous damage to the Catholic Church, to the majority of good priests and the welfare of the faithful, that he would do well to think again. There can be no winner in this dispute. It is a welcome sign that some leading churchmen are without the hubris. Dr Martin, Bishop Walsh and the new cardinal have learned the lessons of recent years. That is progress.