Church leaders failed to grasp that sex abuse by clerics is a crime, not just a canon law offence, writes GARRET FITZGERALD
THE IMPACT of the Murphy report on all of us has been traumatic. No one who heard Marie Collins on RTÉ Radio One's Livelinesome days ago could be unmoved by her desolation at the reaction of some churchmen to the report. And the depth of anger at its revelations that has been expressed by so many members of the public will not easily be forgotten.
There is a huge sense of collective shame that hundreds of children were so terribly damaged by their treatment, and that our State was structured so that most people were kept in ignorance of this abuse.
The origins of this problem clearly lie with the authorities in Rome, whose instructions to bishops about the handing of clerical paedophile cases totally failed to recognise that such abuses are not just grave sins, but are also crimes under State law. The sin may be forgiven by the church, but the damage to the children, which is all too often irretrievable, requires punitive action by the civic authority.
For their part, organs of the Irish State, displaying a misplaced deference, not merely failed to pursue such crimes actively, but in at least some instances seem to have collaborated in the suppression of investigations.
A third stage in the moral disintegration was the efforts by members of the Irish hierarchy in the 1990s to cover up such crimes. That reaction has been successfully challenged through full-scale inquiries in three dioceses, accompanied by audits in the remaining 23, the results of which will be published shortly.
A fourth stage, initiating a belated recovery from this moral disintegration, was marked by the appointment of Diarmuid Martin as Archbishop of Dublin – a man fired by a resolute commitment to clear up this mess.
Now we are in a difficult fifth stage, as those bishops who are seen as having failed to meet their responsibilities face massive public anger. What seems clear is that throughout responsible church authorities have failed to understand the depth of the horror that clerical sexual abuse of children evokes amongst the laity. This may be one of the prices paid for celibacy.
Two particular problems arise in relation to church actions. First earlier instructions failed to advert to the fact that child sexual abuse was a crime in State law as well as a “delict”, or offence, in canon law. Combined with strict adherence to the secrecy imposed by the Vatican, this may help to explain why bishops felt, quite wrongly, they could ignore the law of the State.
Second – and if this has been referred to in media reports, I missed it – the Murphy report reveals that just as insanity is a defence in State law, so also is paedophilia – which is clearly seen by the church as a form of insanity – accepted as a defence in canon law cases of clerical child abuse. This may help to explain why a number of offenders, having been recognised by church authorities as paedophiles, and thus seen as not morally responsible for their actions, were sent to new parishes without any regard for the danger to children there – when they should have been reported to the Garda.
The most recent papal instruction on this issue was Ad Exequandam Ecclesiastica Legem, issued by cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, in May 2001. It dealt with "grave delicts in the celebration of the sacraments and against morals, reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith". The only item listed under "morals" is in fact "a delict committed by a cleric against the Sixth Commandment of the Decalogue with a minor below the age of 18 years". The Vatican instruction was that "as often as an ordinary or hierarch has at least probable knowledge of a reserved delict, after he has carried out the preliminary investigation he is to indicate it to the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith". Cases of this kind "are subject to the pontifical secret . . .", it added.
Rome was immediately overwhelmed by clerical child abuse cases from all over the world. It could not cope and, apparently, without revising its written instructions, seems simply to have told bishops to forget about Rome, and sort out the problem themselves. So, individual bishops were left to cope with their own clerical child abuse problems, which many were clearly ill-equipped to do.
Given that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the nuncio will respond only to diplomatic approaches, in his interview with the nuncio next week – as well as through the Irish Ambassador to the Holy See – the Minister should seek an urgent replacement of the now inoperative 2001 procedure, with its secrecy provision, by an instruction that bishops abandon secrecy vis-a-vis the State when dealing with the criminal aspect of clerical child abuse, and report information on such cases to the appropriate civil authorities.
And the Minister should make it clear that he will be reporting on his communication to the Dáil. No more secret diplomacy.