Madam, - It is encouraging to read that Bishop Donal Murray rejects "the discreet approach to sex abuse". It is quite obvious that the bishop has compassion for both the perpetrators and the abused. There is, however, another dimension and that is the issue of condonation by those who are neither perpetrators nor abused.
The hard question has to be asked: if sexual abuse is as reprehensible as stated, then why were those who are responsible for preaching the good news of the Gospel not outraged? This is not a rhetorical question. If progress is to be made by our Church leaders, they must consider that question and how it applies to themselves.
This is the question which the Church must face - and there is no point in confining it to local churches. These matters were known the whole way up. If it is to be reborn, then deep questions have to be asked by the Church itself. Father Tom Doyle eloquently defines the problem as "clericalism". I suggest this is the heart of the matter.
I agree with Bishop Murray that demonising, scapegoating or brushing under the carpet achieves nothing except protracted and increased pain for everyone.
However painful the truth, the reality is that clerical powers were abused at the expense of children. The Church must engage internally with itself as to why this happened, not just how it was let happen. Church leaders must begin this debate; and, frame it in whatever motion or question you like, the two words which are central to the Lenten reflection, as proposed by the Bishop, contain the two issues of major importance: the issue of abuse; the issue of sex.
The Bishop's statement may be a tentative dipping of the toes in the ocean but at least he has come to the beach. Is it too much to hope that discretion might be replaced with effusiveness? Perhaps another Council is necessary to bring the Bishops on board to implement the spirit of the last one. - Yours, etc.,
SIMON W. KENNEDY, Solicitor, New Ross, Co Wexford.