Madam, - There is a lot of discussion about the "deal" struck between the State and the religious orders over institutional child abuse. In this discussion, I think we are missing an important point. In a very real sense the State is not protecting or buffering the religious orders, but itself.
The best evidence in court was that the neglect of my son Jamie left him profoundly disabled when with appropriate services he would have been no more than moderately disabled. Judge Barr placed the primary blame for this abuse on the State.
The judgment states: "A potential difficulty arises out of the long-established practice of the State in meeting many of its constitutional obligations to society at large, and to the handicapped in particular, not by direct intervention but through the employment of others, notably charitable and religious institutions, to provide services on its behalf.
"The State is entitled to fulfil its obligations in that way and it may elect to discharge its duties through third-party organisations. However, if it takes that course I believe that it has an obligation to the service providers and to the beneficiaries of such services to adopt in discharge of its constitutional obligations a hands-on approach, to take a positive role in the organisation, provision and supervision of services offered on its behalf, and also to provide funds necessary to meet its constitutional obligations where they are contracted out.
"The sad history of Jamie Sinnott is an indictment of the State and cogently illustrates that it has failed to participate actively and meaningfully in the provision of appropriate services for him and those like him over the years."
In the case of institutional child abuse, sexual and otherwise, there is no question that primary responsibility is that of the abuser. But it is a mistake to forget the cosy arrangement, "the deal" that the State had with religious orders and charitable organisations when apportioning the next level of responsibility solely to the abusers' religious order.
The State, in the Constitution, guarantees to cherish all the children of the nation. It did not do it in the past (nor does it now). For decades the State farmed out anyone who had the misfortune of being inconvenient, anyone who needed care because they were orphaned, disabled, in trouble, mentally ill, poor. The State literally handed the child or adult over to others and walked away without a backwards glance.
The State had pledged rights and dignity to every human person in Ireland. Indeed, carrying out this pledge is the reason for the State's existence. As Judge Barr pointed out, the State should have involved itself in standards of care, monitoring the service to the individual.
Instead the arrangement with religious orders and charitable institutions meant that they absorbed the "problems" (translated: inconvenient persons). The State absented itself, making itself dutiless beyond minimal funding.
The individual became invisible. The child or adult could be nurtured, neglected or abused. He or she could thrive, survive, suffer or die in State indifference in State "care" and that is exactly what happened.
No, I think, the State did not make a "deal" with the religious orders for the reasons I have heard mentioned - because the orders are powerful, to get Church lands, to protect non-abusing religious who gave faithful service, etc. In fact, I do not think the State has made a new deal at all. I think it has just continued the arrangement it has always had with the religious orders, charitable institutions and many other agencies. That is, the State throws money at a problem and others take the problem off the State's hands.
If the State continues to get away with having the religious orders absorb the State's share of the blame as well as their own, then the "deal" will once more have served the State well. - Yours, etc.,
KATHY SINNOTT, Hope Project, Ballinabearna, Ballinhassig,
Co Cork.