BishopAccountability.org
	"Mental Reservation" and the Church's Version of Truth By Breda O'brien The Irish Times November 28, 2009 http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2009/1128/1224259619053.html How could twisted accounts of truth be let obscure the protection of children from abuse? AFTER ARCHBISHOP Martin’s press conference following the release of the Dublin diocesan report on Thursday, I commented to a senior journalist that the whole saga was utterly depressing. To my amazement, he said that, on the contrary, it was a tribute to the courage of so many people who doggedly kept on refusing to be put down and silenced. And he is right. Andrew Madden, Ken Reilly, Marie Collins and so many others who were violated, worked tirelessly for justice. And then there are people like the young garda, Finbar Garland, who had less than one year’s experience when he was told of altar boys being abused. In 1983, on advice from a sergeant, he conducted extensive interviews before the other young people involved could be “got at” or silenced. He could recognise evil and react appropriately. There are priests who acted with courage, and refused to duck below the parapet. And there is this statement by the commission which compiled the report, at once inspiring and damning: “The commission has been impressed by the extraordinary charity shown by complainants and their families towards offenders. It is very clear to the commission that complainants and their families frequently behaved in a much more Christian and charitable way than the church authorities.” And then there is the other side – the buck-passing, the chronic indecisiveness, the active choice to cover up scandal rather than protect children. At times while reading the report, I felt that some of the senior clerics inhabited a kind of weird parallel universe that apparently made sense to them, but is utterly incomprehensible to anyone outside it. I truly believe that no parent, confronted with evidence that children were being abused, would think first of preventing scandal, and not of the pain and terror of a child. And what about “mental reservation”? As a practising Catholic who also has a degree in theology, completed a stone’s throw from Clonliffe, I have never heard of this idea. Cardinal Connell apparently believed, in his sincere evidence to the commission, that it was acceptable to use “mental reservation” when put on the spot. He explained to the commission that, while not permitted to lie, “on the other hand, you may be put in a position where you have to answer, and there may be circumstances in which you can use an ambiguous expression realising that the person who you are talking to will accept an untrue version of whatever it may be – permitting that to happen, not willing that it happened”. So the adroit use of mental reservation allowed him to say that archdiocesan funds were not used to help Ivan Payne make a settlement to Andrew Madden, even though a loan was given to Payne. I thought nothing could shock me, but that did. The concept of “mental reservation” means that you can believe nothing from someone who thinks it is an acceptable practice, because at any moment, that person may be allowing you to “accept an untrue version of whatever it may be”, while comfortably absolved from the guilt of lying. How could anyone, much less one of the most senior churchmen in the country, believe that to be acceptable? What kind of training and formation allowed people to justify lying, albeit passively? The church that emerges from the pages of the report is a shambolic mess, with poor communication, no clear demarcation of responsibility, no accountability. Auxiliary bishops got to have a say in which priests got sent to which parishes, but otherwise had no authority. Some former auxiliaries were expected to handle cases without adequate information, and others did not provide adequate information to psychiatrists. The commission also states Episcopal appointments seemed to hinge on doctrinal orthodoxy, with no consideration of management ability. The church did not even know its own law, canon law, even though it took refuge in it when it suited. Unbelievably, canon law contains provision for dealing with sexual abuse, but almost no one seemed to know about it. The language of the commission’s report is dry and factual, which strangely enough, adds to its impact. For example, it says, “Canon law provides the church authorities with a means not only of dealing with offending clergy, but also with a means of doing justice to victims, including paying compensation to them . . . The commission has not encountered a case where canon law was invoked as a means of doing justice to victims.” It is clear an investigation should be carried out into every diocese. Until then, shocking revelations will continue to emerge in dribs and drabs, and the church’s credibility will continue to haemorrhage away. Similarly, the craven deference of some gardai, and the fact the Health Service Executive is grossly incapable of dealing with non-family cases, and has such an archaic filing system that the commission estimated it would take it 10 years to locate useful information, must also be dealt with. It should also be remembered the commission accepts that best practice is now being followed in the Dublin archdiocese, but contends that this good practice is too dependent on the archbishop and child protection officer being fully committed to the policy. It also acknowledges, while critical of him in other ways, that it was Cardinal Connell who began putting procedures into place, and that he was one of the first bishops to use canon law to remove abusers. The needs and wishes of practising Catholics are by no means as important as the needs and rights of victims of abuse, but Catholics who try to live by the gospel of Jesus, the message of truth and joy, also feel utterly betrayed by their leadership. Archbishop Martin rightly did not give in to media demands that he urge some of his fellow bishops to resign, as it is as much a question of a system as individuals, but he did appeal to their consciences. Can they stand over their ability to credibly witness the importance of child protection and real change in church priorities? If not, the clear implication was that they should resign. Let us hope they do not use mental reservation on that one.
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.