Monthly Archives: April 2010 - Page 2

Survivors seek panel to investigate abuse

Survivors seek panel to investigate abuse

By Fiach Kelly Political Correspondent

Friday April 16 2010

SURVIVORS of abuse at psychiatric institutions yesterday demanded a truth commission be set up to investigate their claims that they were abused while in care.

At a protest outside Leinster House, the Templemore Forgotten Victims group was backed in their call by Reverend Kevin Annett, an international campaigner against clerical and institutional abuse.

The group was founded by Dr Rosaleen Rogers, who comes from the Tipperary town.

“I was detained as a teenager in Clonmel Mental Hospital,” Dr Rogers (65) said.

“At one point I weighed only four stone. I have not been able to keep food down for 40 years. I have not been able to get work because I have had to keep to a liquid diet — it has ruined my life.

“I have lost everything and I want a truth commission to establish the truth of what happened to me and others. I want to know who harmed me,” she said.

Vancouver-based campaigner Rev Annett added the same type of crimes had happened in Canada and the same kind of cover-up was going on.

- Fiach Kelly Political Correspondent

Irish Independent

Cowen to make Orders foot €680m abuse bill

Cowen to make Orders foot €680m abuse bill

By John Cooney

Friday April 16 2010

THE Government is pressing 18 religious orders to pay half of the expected €1.36bn bill for the Ryan investigation into systematic abuse of children in industrial schools and orphanages.

This would require all the orders including the Christian Brothers and the Sisters of Mercy to contribute towards the overall target assigned to them of €680m.

This represents a radical revision of a 2002 indemnity deal negotiated by the then Minister for Education, Michael Woods which capped the liability of the religious congregations at just €128m. Since the publication of the damning report last May by Mr Justice Sean Ryan, the Congregations pledged to top up the 2002 deal with further contributions which they valued at €348.51m. This would have brought the sum to be paid by religious — much of it in land — to €476.51m.

But at a meeting with the religious at Government Buildings yesterday, Mr Cowen demanded that the bill should be shared on a 50-50 basis between the taxpayer and the religious.

This meant, he said, that the orders needed to come up with an overall figure of €680m. Mr Cowen noted that the improved offer from the religious still left a shortfall of over €200m to be bridged by them. In a new development Mr Cowen signalled that this additional contribution of €200m would be used as a contribution to the planned National Children’s Hospital.

Mr Cowen told the religious that he plans to embark on a series of bilateral meetings with each of the 18 congregations to find this extra €200m. “The Government has proposed to each Congregation a process to establish how this objective can be achieved over time,” Mr Cowen said in a communiqué issued late last night.

AGREEMENT

Sr Elizabeth Maxwell, of the Presentation Sisters, said the religious congregations had never expected round-table talks to go on for so long, and the bilateral talks would represent a new phase. “No agreement has been reached with the Government other than we are going to move forward together.”

Later, at a separate meeting last night with survivors’ representatives Mr Cowen told them that in line with a Dail resolution, the Government plans to place in a Statutory Trust the Congregations’s cash offer of €110m over the next few years.

“The Government will be consulting with the former residents as to the exact nature of the fund, how it will operate and the uses to which it will be put,” the Taoiseach said.

But a prominent survivor dramatically walked out of the meeting with the Taoiseach and four Government ministers in protest against the new compensation plan.

Mr Michael O’Brien, a former Fianna Fail mayor of Clonmel, also pledged to go on hunger strike outside Government Buildings in three weeks time after he had undergone a scheduled medical operation. Angrily accusing Mr Cowen of “not doing his job” of properly compensating survivors, Mr O’Brien, claimed that for the past year the Taoiseach “has been leading us the garden path.”

Describing the cash offer of €110m as “a joke,” Mr OBrien, 77, said that not one extra penny had been paid by the religious orders, because “he (Mr Cowen) is not doing his job.”

Mr O’Brien said that all he wanted was for the Taoiseach to look after former residents of institutions for once and for all. “I want nothing for myself,” he added. “I will not beg for myself but I will beg for the like of them.

“This man (Mr Cowen) has not even be listening to us.” Other survivors of institutional abuse stayed on at the talks with the Taoiseach, Tanaiste Mary Coughlan, Health Minister Mary Harney, Justice Minister Dermot Ahern and Children’s Minister Barry Andrews.

But they also vented their rage as the Taoiseach announced he would be embarking on a new phase of talks with each of the 18 religious orders Mr John Kelly, of SOCA Ireland, said that the post-Ryan report offer was mainly in properties “which are of no value to anyone.”

He said that the money should “be put into a fund to be handed to the victims directly and they can look after their own families. “We do not want this money to be given in kind.” He said survivors wanted someone to underwrite the contributions, but not the taxpayer.

- John Cooney

Another night NOT at the Theatre

Please copy

A picket will be placed on the Abbey Theatre tonight, Wednesday 14th April to highlight the lack of access for People with Disabilities to our National Theatre.

To those who have those who have given sterling support to me over the past week, I thank you. Let’s hope this is the beginning of something new – I believe, I hope it is.

Best wishes

Paddy.
click to enlarge images. Please copy
Abbey says no posterPeacock Turns its Back on People with Disabilities

PS. I’m indebted to A.B. for his help in the making of these posters just as I’m indebted to others who have lent their support in various ways. Many thanks to you all.

Disability activist to picket abuse play

The Irish Times – Monday, April 12, 2010

Disability activist to picket abuse play

PAUL CULLEN

AUTHOR AND disability rights campaigner Paddy Doyle has said he will picket the opening of a play this week about the Ryan report on child abuse because the venue is inaccessible to wheelchair users.

Mr Doyle has described as intolerable and abhorrent the decision to stage the series of plays about child abuse in the Peacock Theatre, which is in the basement of the Abbey theatre building and has no disabled persons’ access.

He says board members of the Abbey should explain how they can stand over the use of a venue that “clearly discriminates” against people who use wheelchairs.

“We are now in the year 2010. There are numerous ‘gadgets and gizmos’ that can be employed to ensure people with disabilities gain access to various buildings which are hundreds of years older than the Abbey.”

Mr Doyle says he is horrified that he may not be able to gain access to see the performances of his friends, journalist Mary Raftery and writer Mannix Flynn.

In a letter to Mr Doyle, Abbey director Fiach Mac Conghail expressed shame at the lack of disabled access. The issue was alienating people and was one of the reasons a new building was needed for the national theatre, he said.

Pope Benedict hit by new Church child abuse allegations

Pope Benedict hit by new Church child abuse allegations

The Pope is facing allegations he was responsible for delaying Church action against a paedophile priest – the first time he has been accused so directly.

The allegations stem from a letter signed by Benedict XVI in 1985, when he was a senior Vatican official.

Associated Press said it had obtained the letter, signed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, resisting the defrocking of offending US priest Stephen Kiesle.

The Vatican says he was exercising due caution before sacking the priest.

Cardinal Ratzinger – who was at the time the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith – said the “good of the universal Church” needed to be considered in any defrocking, AP reported.

The Vatican claims the letter must be considered in its true context of a lengthy exchange of correspondence between California and Rome about defrocking an American priest who was a known child molester.

The Pope’s critics claim that he stalled and left unanswered for years letters concerning alleged cases of sexual abuse by priests.

American bishops are coming under increasing pressure from their flocks to explain why the church in Rome did not take more robust action or took no action at all.

So they are releasing confidential documents which put the future Pope’s lack of action in a bad light.

The Vatican insists that the Pope was only exercising due caution before sacking a priest for sexual misconduct.

Vatican officials say the letter was part of a long correspondence and should not be taken out of context.

The Vatican has confirmed Cardinal Ratzinger's signature

Vatican spokesman Rev Federico Lombardi said: “The press office doesn’t believe it is necessary to respond to every single document taken out of context regarding particular legal situations.”

The allegations come as the Vatican says the Pope is willing to meet more victims of clerical abuse, and as the Vatican prepares to publish a guide on the internet about how bishops should deal with accusations of sexual abuse.

The Catholic Church has been hit by a series of child abuse scandals, including in Ireland, the US, Germany and Norway, and has faced criticism for failing to deal adequately with the problem.

‘Grave significance’

AP said the Rev Kiesle was sentenced to three years of probation in 1978 for lewd conduct with two young boys in San Francisco. It said the Oakland diocese had recommended Kiesle’s removal in 1981 but that that did not happen until 1987.

Cardinal Ratzinger took over the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which deals with sex abuse cases, in 1981.

ALLEGATIONS FACING POPE

In 1980 as archbishop of Munich and Freising, then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger unwittingly approved housing for a priest accused of child abuse. A former deputy later said he made the decision Cardinal Ratzinger failed to act over complaints during the 1990s about US priest Lawrence Murphy, who is thought to have abused some 200 deaf boys in Wisconsin

Cardinal Ratzinger allowed a case against Arizona priest Michael Teta to languish at the Vatican for more than a decade despite repeated pleas for his removal

Cardinal Ratzinger resisted the defrocking of California priest Stephen Kiesle, a convicted offender, saying “good of the universal Church” needed to be considered

The Pope’s supporters say he has been unfairly blamed for cases handled by junior staff, and that he has been proactive in addressing child abuse.

AP says the 1985 correspondence, written in Latin, shows Cardinal Ratzinger saying that Kiesle’s removal would need careful review.

Cardinal Ratzinger urged “as much paternal care as possible” for Kiesle.

Kiesle was sentenced to six years in prison in 2004 after admitting molesting a young girl in 1995.

Kiesle is now 63 and is on the registered sex offenders list in California.

On Friday, the Vatican urged Catholic dioceses around the world to co-operate with police investigating sex abuse allegations against priests.

Father Lombardi acknowledged that the Church had lost public trust and said Church law could no longer be placed above civil laws if that trust were to be recovered.

He also said Pope Benedict was prepared to meet more victims of abuse to offer them moral support.

This court… deems it necessary to consider the good of the Universal Church together with that of the petitioner

BBC religious affairs correspondent Robert Pigott says this is an abrupt change of tone by the Vatican.

He says officials had previously accused critics of trying to smear the Pope personally and only last weekend said he should ignore petty gossip directed at him.

Meanwhile Italian media have reported that the Vatican is to issue guidelines on its website on Monday on fighting paedophilia.

The Vatican has ruled out any possibility of a papal resignation over the scandals.

Catholic Church’s wounds are entirely self-inflicted, so, physician, heal thyself

Church of England leaders aren’t to blame for the erosion of Catholic moral authority, says Eilis O’Hanlon

Sunday April 11 2010 Sunday Independent.

The Archbishop of Canterbury’s Easter message this year addressed the feelings of discrimination felt by many Christians in Britain who have been pressurised into not wearing crucifixes at work in case it offends people of other religions. By which, of course, he meant Muslims, because nobody cares less about the feelings of Hindus or Jews, since they don’t express their dissatisfaction in the form of exploding planes, trains and automobiles.

Catholic clergy in Ireland could only look on with envy, longing for the day when they too could deliver sermons on such comforting topics. Instead, at Easter they were forced, once again, as they probably will be for many Easters to come, to spend one of Christianity’s holiest times of year dealing with the ongoing fallout from the child-abuse scandal. That scandal keeps reaching deeper into the hierarchy, with a Norwegian bishop, no less, resigning last week after admitting to the past sexual abuse of an altar boy. He is the most senior churchman to have fallen from grace as a result of actual abuse, but the tentacles of allegations of a cover up now reach as high as the Pope himself, and there’s not much further up it can go than that, except to God Himself, and He seems keen on keeping out of this one.

“You’re on your own, lads,” appears to be the Almighty’s attitude to his earthly representatives in Rome, and you can hardly blame Him for that.

“Suffer the little children to come unto me,” was Christ’s message, not, “Make the little children suffer.”

What must be especially painful for Catholic clergy is that they’re unable as a consequence to hitch a ride on the Victim Express which has been rolling its way through the ranks of Christians for the last few years, picking up ever more passengers along the way convinced they are being unfairly targeted for criticism, by the media in particular. The Catholic Church would love to step right up on to the footplate of that particular engine; but every time it heads to the station, there’s another impassioned protest waiting.

The thing is, it would probably make a hames of it. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, had the wisdom to step back from the more extreme manifestations of the growing victimology among Christians, pointing out that banning people from wearing crucifixes at work had more of the flavour of “bureaucratic silliness” than persecution. He also warned fellow Christians against using “overheated” language, urging them to “remember those many, many places where persecution is real”.

As a result, he was able to then deliver a few well-aimed digs at prominent anti-Christian commentators (the spirit of that humanist zealot, Richard Dawkins, loomed large, though he went unnamed), who constantly harp on about the dangers posed by the Bible-bashers while declaring that their time is at an end. As Dr Williams pointed out, why get so irate about something which is allegedly dying out anyway?

That kind of measured, more nuanced and witty response is still alien to the Catholic Church, where the feelings of persecution are rarely tempered by taking note of the bigger picture, and where overheated language is always the preferred mode of discourse. That much was obvious recently when the Pope’s personal preacher, Fr Raniero Cantalamessa, compared the treatment of practising Catholics today to that of Jews in Nazi Germany. He later retracted the remarks, but it was the fact that he made them at all which was significant. It was a disturbing insight into how the Vatican sees itself in the child abuse scandals as it sinks, in the words of the Economist, “ever deeper into self-pity, laced with conspiracy theory”.

The self-pity manifested itself glaringly last week when Catholic clergy reacted angrily to comments by the same Archbishop of Canterbury that the Church in Ireland had lost “all credibility” because of its handling of child abusers.

As always, context is everything. Rowan Williams didn’t exactly say that. He quoted second-hand from an Irish friend of his, a priest, who had remarked on the difficulty of walking down some streets in Ireland now wearing a dog collar. He then concluded: “An institution so deeply bound into the life of a society suddenly losing all credibility — that’s not just a problem for the Church, it is a problem for everybody in Ireland.” Which is putting it mildly.

That didn’t stop Irish Catholics from overreacting, with the Archbishop of Dublin, Diarmuid Martin, quickly dismissing the comment, saying that the Church in Ireland “did not need this comment on this Easter weekend, and do not deserve it”. The note of whining was unmistakable, and was reinforced by Dr Martin declaring that he had “rarely felt personally so discouraged” as he had on hearing his English counterpart’s remarks.

His personal discouragement really is nobody’s problem but his own, and it pales into insignificance next to the pain of a child who has first been abused, and then has to watch the abuser protected by fellow priests. It wasn’t a very clever response either. Certain Gospel passages about taking the beam out of one’s own eye before criticising the mote in the eyes of your Anglican brethren across the water certainly came to mind. The Catholic Church will get nowhere until it learns to humbly take a few knocks for the team, as it were.

Rather than looking for an apology from the Archbishop of Canterbury (and getting it, too), it would have been better off facing up to the fact that the diminishment in the moral authority of the Irish Church has not come about because bearded liberals in clerical garb in Canterbury made a few anodyne remarks. Nor are Church of England leaders to blame for the growing campaign against the Pope’s forthcoming visit to the UK. All those wounds have been self-inflicted, and they’re the only physicians who can heal themselves.

Until then, few people are going to be listening. Which is why there was such a muted response from the Church to the lifting of the Good Friday booze ban in Limerick. An old taboo was breached, and the silence from the pulpit was deafening. Christmas will surely fall to the drink-sodden pagans next, and the Church will still be too busy making excuses and feeling sorry for itself to mount a coherent defence. Or did the clergy just not bother because they were all down the bar, drowning their sorrows?

Bearing communal witness

The Irish Times – Saturday, April 10, 2010

It has been harrowing to rehearse, and will be hard to watch, but the Abbey’s ‘documentary theatre’ piece based on the Ryan report is a cultural response to a national trauma, writes KATE HOLMQUIST

“Please note that the content of No Escape is disturbing. Over 16s only. Parental guidance necessary.”

THE WORDS ABOVE are how the Abbey Theatre warns its audience about the first piece of “documentary theatre” it has ever staged. The mental health advisory is one usually associated with cinema, TV and the internet.

No Escape isn’t a play in the traditional sense. It is an orchestrated reading by actors of the Ryan report, the investigation by Mr Justice Sean Ryan into abuse in Catholic-run industrial schools and institutions. The script was compiled and edited by journalist and TV director Mary Raftery, whose task it was to distil 2,700 pages of the Ryan report into a little more than 50 pages. Her goal was “to give a visceral sense of how the system broke children”.

The script is so harrowing that psychological counselling has been offered to the actors and the Abbey Theatre’s front-of-house staff have been given helpline numbers and advised on how to handle distressed audience members. It will be an intense 90-minute production, with no intermission. “It’s not going to be a fun night out at the theatre,” says Raftery.

When the Ryan report into abuse in the Artane, Letterfrack and Goldenbridge industrial schools was published in May 2009 – nearly a year ago – Abbey literary director Aideen Howard and artistic director Fiach Mac Conghail wanted to respond and ensure that the Abbey was “involved in the national conversation”, as Mac Conghail puts it.

He and Howard thought of bringing in a playwright, but that would have taken too long from commission to production of a script. The way to put the Ryan report on stage relatively quickly, they decided, was to emulate the process of the Tricycle Theatre in Kilburn, London, which pioneered documentary theatre with its read-aloud verbatim account of the Saville inquiry into Bloody Sunday and its testimonies of survivors of Guantánamo. No playwright could possibly do better than the words of the people who had experienced the events.

The Abbey was less concerned with the issue of who, in these depressing times, would buy tickets for an unsettling evening of theatre concerning events that started in 1930, a very long ago time ago in the context of today’s Twitterati. Howard and Mac Conghail believed that, as custodians of the theatre’s traditions, they needed to take the report a step further and give it the sort of understanding and meaning that only the theatre can achieve.

Mac Conghail says: “You can ask: is this box office? I don’t care. We have a responsibility to present this work. It’s going to be tough for people, and not a night of entertainment.”

As playwright Sean O’Casey wrote in The Plough and the Stars , premiered at the Abbey in 1923 and to be staged there once again later this year: “The time is rotten ripe for revolution.”

The value of presenting the Ryan report on the stage, says Howard , is that it will be “a communal experience” and an opportunity to “bear witness”, compared to the solitary reading of a report in the newspaper or on the internet.

Howard and Mac Conghail have a strong stable of 20 playwrights currently commissioned, but instead they approached dogged working journalist Mary Raftery, who for 12 years has followed the story of institutional abuse and without whom the Ryan report may never have happened.

“She’s quite an extraordinary, unique person,” says Mac Conghail.

As the maker of the ground-breaking TV documentary, States of Fear , and the author of the book, Suffer the Little Children , Raftery grasped the challenge. She was already aware that, without some cultural statement, the Ryan report would “disappear in a puff of smoke” and be forgotten.

After a month’s preparation, she wrote the bulk of the script at the Tyrone Guthrie Centre in Annaghmakerrig, Co Monaghan, in an intensive two weeks, followed by a further month of editing. While at Annaghmakerrig, she found herself apologising to resident artists during communal meals for being “increasingly morose” as she waded through the report. She hadn’t expected to be so emotionally affected by her close reading, even though more than anyone she knew the material: “It was an extraordinary revelation.”

She praises Mr Justice Ryan: “I didn’t realise just how good the report was, the complexity of it, the way Ryan reflected not just the voices of the abused but also the voices of the people who worked in the system – the abusers – reaching a level of truth that was not available before. He conveyed a real sense of how complex the world of the institutions was. It was not a simple world. It was grossly and grotesquely abusive.” The reading was agony, but worthwhile in the end, like jumping into the freezing sea on a warm day. “You just have to do it,” Raftery says.

The cast have had a similar experience, plunging into No Escape with a mere three-week rehearsal period. Lorcan Cranitch, who will speak the words of Mr Justice Ryan, explains that the actors won’t be developing characters as they do in traditional theatre.

“I’M A MOUTHPIECE for the Ryan report and I’ll be making no attempt at becoming judicial,” he says. “The main challenge for us in presenting a factual document is what slant do you put on it, if you put a slant on it at all. It’s a fascinating place to be . . . The project is provocative, and I’m attracted to theatre that is provocative. There was also the opportunity to work with Róisín McBrinn, a very exciting director, and to be part of something that is ingrained in our psyche as a nation.”

Researching his part before rehearsals, Cranitch began reading the Ryan report in depth. “Very quickly I had to stop. I thought, I’m going to get in deeper than I need to be . . . I don’t think people realise exactly how horrific the report is.”

The account of a two-and-a-half-year-old being beaten stopped him in his tracks. For the actors, “it has taken its toll”, Cranitch adds, though he himself hasn’t availed of the counselling offered.

Choosing the most powerful pieces of testimony, while also linking them together in a way that told a story, was a challenge, says Raftery. “The audience will not be bored; they will be energised,” she says. “It’s a play in the sense that States of Fear was a documentary. I have taken that TV experience and translated in on to the stage.”

Who will want to see this work of theatre? Raftery sees her audience as the sort of people who used to read Magill magazine, where writers such as herself pulled together all the strands of an issue and produced what she calls “the definitive word”. She also expects that there will be people in their 50s, many of whom are among the 1,700 people who volunteered evidence to the Ryan report (300 were eventually chosen and quoted by Ryan). She thinks the play is also relevant to the children and friends of those who survived the industrial schools. As for the relatively privileged younger generation, she hopes that many will buy tickets out of a need to understand the trauma Irish society is still recovering from.

“From 1930, 170,000 people went through the institutional system, in which all kinds of abuse was endemic,” she says. “That’s numbing – it’s the equivalent of crimes against humanity during the second World War.”

Raftery explains her own resilience in the face of such horrific material, saying that she herself had a “middle-class, privileged childhood with no trauma of any kind” in the “intensive eccentricity” of Dublin 4, attending the Pembroke School, formerly known as “Miss Meredith’s”. She thinks that her protected childhood gave her strength.

“I have often thought I could never do what a counsellor does. I’d have difficulty absorbing pain at that level,” she says. “But I was driven to express the injustice of what happened to other people . . . As a journalist, you follow the story. If you are lucky enough to come across a story that will make a difference, you have a duty to follow it to the ends of the earth.”

“Raftery is so self-effacing,” concludes Lorcan Cranitch, “but in lots of ways she’s the heroine of the piece.”

No Escape previews on Tue, April 13, opens on Wed, April 14, and runs until Sat, April 24. For more, see abbeytheatre.ie

Meanwhile, the cover-up goes on at the Vatican

By Sinead O’Connor musician

The Vatican persists in treating us all like half-wits. Do we really believe that the senior priest who made the foolish remark about the Jewish people during a Papal mass did so without the sanction of the pope or Vatican hierarchs? The pope sat through the speech and did not stand up to object. The only reason the Vatican/pope distanced themselves from this remark was because it provoked such righteous outrage from the Jewish community. It also is most sinister that the sacrament of mass is being used as a political platform, all over the world, including Ireland. It is disrespectful to use the mass as a platform for anything other than scriptures. If the Pope/Vatican had a case to make in their defence, they should discuss all of these matters directly with the world’s media and allow themselves to be questioned. Instead they refuse to put themselves in any situation where they can be questioned, and prefer to make statements, then slither back into silence. This craven behaviour is because their case is utterly indefensible and they know it.

Their statements display a staggering, arrogant, and uncaring, and cowardly attitude toward the thousands of people who were sexually abused, and who had their abuse systematically covered up all over the world by employees of the pope. In his letter to the Irish church, the pope said the hierarchs had a “well intentioned” desire to protect the church when they covered up abuse and endangered thousands of children. But there have been five reports published to the contrary: The Boston Report, The Philadelphia Report, The Ferns Report, The Ryan Report, and The Murphy Report. ANYONE, including the Pope/Vatican, who can suggest there is a “vile media campaign” against the Church must not have read those reports. All five reports conclude, independently, that employees of the Vatican acted, without exception, all over the world in the same disgraceful manner when handling complaints of abuse. They transferred but didn’t defrock priests who committed acts of abuse, as in the case of a brutal Irish priest who was sent the U.S, where he violently raped six children, threatening that he would murder them if they told anyone. They lied to psychologists who were trying to determine whether abusive priests were fit to continue ministry. They encouraged parents and victims not to go to the police. It is simply unbelievable that such uniform behaviour was not the result of instructions from central command.

The Vatican and pope are relying on the fact that it is not commonly known that there was enough concern about abuse within the church that explicit instructions were issued to every bishop in the world in 1922 and again in 1962 to keep complete secrecy on abuse complaints. In Crimen Sollicitationis or “Crime of Solicitation,” all complainants, who were in fact described in the instructions as “penitents”, as well as all clergy receiving complaints, were to swear an oath of secrecy and be “restrained by perpetual silence.” And having done so, the complainants were to be “dismissed”. The text of the oath is as follows…

“I will never, directly or indirectly, by gesture, word, writing, or in any other way and under any pretext, EVEN THAT OF A GREATER GOOD OR OF A HIGHLY SERIOUS REASON, do anything against this fidelity to secrecy, unless special permission or dispensation is expressly granted to me by The Supreme Pontiff”.

In 2001, Pope John Paul II placed Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict) in charge of all abuse complaints and sent a letter of instructions to all bishops of the world, which confirms that Crimen Sollicitationis was the rule until May 2001. This letter, entitled “De delictis gravioribus,” states that matters of abuse are to be dealt with “exclusively” within the church and are subject to “the pontifical secret”, which means one can be excommunicated for discussing the matters outside of the church. The letter does say “co-operate with civil authorities,” but the language suggests only if they come to you. It categorically does NOT say GO to the police. In their defense, Church leaders also have argued — insanely — that clergy and others didn’t know the extent or damage of child sex abuse, in or out of the church, in decades past. They also make the case that they weren’t legally obliged to report such abuse back then. Regardless, they were morally obliged to report even just one case of child abuse. Wonder what they would have done if their own nieces and nephews were the ones being abused?

It seems to me, the pope should fire every living cleric who was involved either directly or indirectly in efforts to cover-up abuse. Not doing that send a very bad signal. It suggests that either he approves of what these people did, or that he cares more about the institution than the children, or that he fears what fired clergy might say about his role in all of this. The Pope/ Vatican could restore his/their reputation by firing those clergy. As long as he doesn’t, the cover-up continues. And the house of The Holy Spirit remains a haven for moral criminals.

Sinead O’Connor is a singer, musician and mother of four. She was ordained as a priest by a Catholic splinter group called the Latin Tridentine Church, taking the clerical name Mother Bernadette Maria.

By Sinead O’Connor | April 8, 2010; 8:40 AM ET

Probe after shoes used in tribute to abused go missing

By Patricia McDonagh

Tuesday April 06 2010

GARDAI are investigating the unexplained disappearance of 1,000 pairs of children’s shoes that were used to symbolise the suffering of victims of clerical abuse.

Abuse survivors had tied the tiny shoes to the railings outside a Dublin Cathedral on Sunday, to symbolise generations of children who fell victim to institutional abuse.

But yesterday it emerged that the shoes, which had been draped all around St Mary’s Pro-Cathedral, had mysteriously gone missing from the railings.

It remained unclear last night whether they had been removed by a third party or stolen by an unscrupulous passer-by.

Symbol

Abuse campaigner Frank Robinson bought the shoes for €4,200 from Denmark to use as an international symbol against child abuse.

He was left distraught when he went to collect them from outside the cathedral later on Sunday to find they had gone missing.

Gardai last night said they were examining the circumstances leading up to the disappearance of the shoes, which were reported missing at 6pm on Sunday.

A spokesman for the pro-cathedral did not answer calls by the Irish Independent last night.

The shoes were initially hung up in a bid to urge Archbishop Diarmuid Martin to recognise the Catholic Church’s shame when he turned up for Easter Sunday Mass at St Mary’s Pro-Cathedral.

Those who were raped and physically and emotionally abused by members of the clergy heckled him when he arrived to celebrate the biggest event in the church calendar.

The church has been under immense pressure in recent weeks to push for the resignation of church hierarchy who were involved in the cover up of clerical child abuse.

In a move seen as a further failure for victims, Cardinal Sean Brady this week signalled he would not leave his position as head of the Catholic Church in Ireland — despite widespread calls for his resignation since it emerged that he swore abuse victims to secrecy.

- Patricia McDonagh

Redress could have been far easier for abuse victims

Redress could have been far easier for abuse victims

OPINION: Was an adversarial legal approach the best way to handle applications to the abuse redress board? I don’t think so, writes RACHEL FEHILY

LAWYERS SOMETIMES forget how intimidating the legal process can be for people outside the profession. I have no doubt that applying for redress, negotiating settlements and appearing at hearings before the Residential Institutions Redress Board was an extremely difficult ordeal for many of the survivors of abuse in residential institutions.

The survivors who prepared cases for their applications were the most vulnerable people I have ever met. Many had serious problems, including homelessness, alcoholism, drug addiction, depression, mental illness, psychological distress, medical conditions and physical injuries. Some were poorly equipped to prepare themselves and engage in the process. It was important that they were well represented, guided and advised by their lawyers throughout.

I wonder was it right that they had to interface with the State via an adversarial legal forum? Was such a forum able to meet their needs? Were lawyers, however well-meaning and sympathetic, the ideal people to guide survivors through this process?

Photograph. The Irish Times. 5th April 2010

A Child hangs childs shoes on the railings of the Pro Cathedral, Dublin, to the memory of children abused by religious.

Therapeutic jurisprudence is a school of law that developed in America in the 1980s. It concentrates on the law’s impact on a person’s emotional and psychological well-being, and regards law as a social force that produces therapeutic or anti-therapeutic consequences. It sees the role of lawyers as being capable of expanding to guard the psychological well-being of their clients.

The design of the redress board follows a legalistic model and the process was not intended to be therapeutic, although I’m sure that many applicants found the experience of telling the board about their abuse cathartic. However, the aim of lawyers who represented applicants was (quite properly) to maximise the size of their awards, not to improve the psychological well-being of their clients.

Applicants and their legal advisers were required to prepare statements, gather evidence, negotiate and communicate, and in some cases applicants were subject to probing questions or cross-examination.

In preparation for their cases, applicants told their stories and many were assessed for physical and mental injuries for the first time by lawyers, psychiatrists, psychologists, doctors and dentists. The purpose of telling their stories and describing their injuries was so that comprehensive evidence of their injuries could be presented to the board at a hearing or settlement meeting. It was not done for therapeutic reasons, although I am sure for many it proved to be a first step on the road to dealing with some of their injuries.

The process bore a strong resemblance to an assessment of a personal injury action, although it was less formal, and the standard of proof was lower. Even so, at each hearing, a chairperson, board member, stenographer, registrar, and opposing legal counsel were present. While it was necessary to conduct the applications this way because taxpayers’ money was being paid to applicants, and the board had to guard against fallacious claims, I have no doubt some applicants were intimidated by the formal setting, were hurt that their evidence was minimised, or upset due to robust cross-examination or impatience from their hearers.

There have been media reports that some of the applicants were unhappy with their experience of appearing before the board, and feel that after they accepted financial awards they were effectively gagged. Many think they cannot talk about their experience of appearing before the board, or cannot subsequently describe to the media the abuse they suffered in institutions because the proceedings are privileged under Section 18 of the Residential Institutions Redress Act, 2002. This privilege is necessary because the board cannot make a finding of negligence, and must protect individuals mentioned during hearings who have not been found guilty of negligence or any criminal act.

The provisions of the Residential Institutions Act 2002, and the function and design of the board, ensure that it is limited to providing the applicants with sympathetic statements of acknowledgement and financial awards. It does not and cannot fulfil all the needs of the applicants, which may be multi-faceted. Applicants who need medical or psychiatric treatment, addiction counselling or education must go to other agencies to have those needs addressed. Lump sum payments to vulnerable applicants with chaotic lifestyles may even have been detrimental. For those applicants, I am sure a treatment programme or pension would have been of greater assistance.

The process of mediation, which is an alternative dispute-resolution mechanism, allows parties to a dispute to design and participate in the resolution of their dispute with a neutral third party. The aim of the process is to allow the parties to tell their stories, discover underlying needs, transform relationships and find a resolution that is creative and not limited to a financial award. Applicants who appeared before the board were treated as individuals who had a private dispute to resolve with the State. They were not given an opportunity to design or engage in a public, political forum that would have assisted them to interact safely with the State and representatives of the institutions via a neutral third party. Such a forum might have helped the parties to find a narrative that would collectively redefine their positions.

The Laffoy Commission gave survivors a forum within which to safely tell their stories. Its report was hugely important, as it recorded and described the horrific abuses that occurred in residential institutions, and gave recommendations. Unfortunately, no forum has been set up to enable survivors to engage with the State and the institutions in a way that might allow them to express their emotional needs, have those needs fulfilled by way of mediated meetings with government representatives or representatives of the institutions, and allow them to transform the narrative of their experience from passive victims to active agents for social change, truth-telling, justice, reconciliation and healing for the whole of Irish society.

Would it have been better for the survivors to have been assigned trained counsellors to help them through the process of collective healing? Would lawyers trained as mediators have been better equipped to help the survivors gain a meaningful resolution? It is impossible to know, as this did not happen.

If the Government and the residential institutions had set up and financed a centre for healing and reconciliation that allowed survivors and their families to come together with trained counsellors and mediators, it might have helped them to start a dialogue (where appropriate) with government representatives and representatives of the institutions where the abuse occurred.

All the necessary help could have been located in one holistic centre, and specially trained lawyers could have acted as assessors and mediators, and been given powers to quickly award lump sum payments and pensions. Other professionals at such a centre could have treated medical, psychiatric, psychological and dental problems, and helped with addiction, educational needs and other therapies. Many of the survivors lived abroad but they could have been invited to the centre to stay for an assessment of their needs, and been referred on to other professionals at or near their homes.

Now that the work of the board is nearly over, €1.4 billion has been spent and 14,667 applications received, I hope the current Government is planning to write to all the applicants when the work of the board is complete. It would be useful to ask the applicants what effect the process and award had on them, in order to discover whether or not it was therapeutic or anti-therapeutic. Did the financial award they receive address their needs? Was the process stressful? Cathartic? Did it provide an opportunity for healing or reconciliation? Were they intimidated? What did they want the State or residential institutions to do in response to the wrongs they suffered? Did they want or receive an apology? How important was an apology to them? Has their identity been transformed, or do they still see themselves as victims?

Lawyers and judges have always played an important role in protecting human rights and ensuring the punishment of criminal behaviour. However, mass human rights violations demand a unique response. If the Government and the residential institutions responsible for those violations had been imaginative, they might have created an impressive centre for meaningful redress. Then, we as Irish people would have been able to offer a model to other countries that will no doubt be going through similar collective traumas, as more evidence of institutional and clerical sexual abuse emerges worldwide.

Rachel Fehily is a barrister and mediator. She represented abuse victims at the redress board