Irish Independent
July 16, 2011
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/james-downey-crozier-no-longer-more-powerful-than-the-dail-2823100.html
 |
For decades the great majority of people took their ethics from the church. We never developed a civic ethic that could replace that system when the inevitable crisis arrived
ENDA Kenny calls the Vatican's handling of clerical sex abuse scandals "disgraceful". Eamon Gilmore meets the Papal Nuncio and demands an explanation from the Vatican of why the Catholic Church's guidelines on the subject were ignored and allegations of abuse went unreported.
Not all that long ago, Irish politicians feared a "belt of a crozier". Much has changed, and for the better.
And that is the true significance of the Cloyne Report. Not the sadly familiar details of the crimes and cover-ups. Not even the breathtaking arrogance and flagrant disregard of the law. The greatest change is in the political response.
That change has been in train for many years. As far back as October 2002, Michael McDowell famously equated the Catholic Church's canon law with the rules of a golf club. Earlier, the church had issued guidelines that provided for mandatory reporting of alleged sexual abuse of minors to the civil authorities.
Any argument about the supposed primacy of canon law over civil law is over. But guidelines can be ignored or circumvented, and evidently more than one Irish diocese has been governed by people who think they can make up their own rules.
They have thereby risked the ultimate threat to their shaky authority: an outright church-State confrontation.
In the past, such an outcome to friction between church and State has always been avoided, by compromise or obfuscation or a climbdown by politicians who thought the crozier more powerful than the Dail. Not this time. The politicians have responded to the Cloyne Report with an unequivocal challenge that, as they clearly believe, they are certain to win.
In some ways, this is a regrettable moment in our history. For centuries, the great majority of the Irish people took their ethics from the church. We never developed a civic ethic that could replace that system when the inevitable crisis arrived. The decline -- crash might be a better word -- of the church's authority has left us rudderless.
Our situation is also an indictment of most bishops' attitude to reform. All institutions require constant reform, and those who fail to recognise that risk at best stagnation, at worst having their wisest words as much ignored as their most foolish.
But reform is, after all, an internal matter. Obedience to the law of the land is the duty and concern of everyone. The politicians have rightly decided that the law must not only be obeyed but strengthened.
Instead of breast-beating and lamentation, we are to have two new pieces of legislation designed to protect minors, and instead of polite diplomatic words we have heard outright criticism of the Vatican itself.
That is greatly to the credit of the Government. It is also to the credit of the Fianna Fail party.
In recent times, Fianna Fail effectively replaced Fine Gael as the "Catholic" party. Lately, it has come under pressure from right-wing Catholic apologists and organisations to assert the "conservative" view on what are coyly called social issues. But in the present case, it has shown good sense by standing firm.
It remains to be seen how all the main parties handle the outstanding issues of contention between church and State. These may be summed up, in ascending order of complexity, as follows: same-sex marriage, compensation for victims of institutional abuse, primary education and abortion.
The first is not really an issue, and certainly should not be an issue. Same-sex couples in civil partnerships already have all the rights of married couples. Only an insignificant minority feel aggrieved that these partnerships are not described as marriages. We should leave well enough alone.
As to the payment of the compensation, the last government made a very bad deal with the religious orders involved. Most people would agree that the liability should be shared 50-50. But the orders fear that such an arrangement could bankrupt many of them. They have little cash, and the value of buildings and land has plummeted. However, in case anyone hasn't noticed, the State has no money at all.
On primary education, Ruairi Quinn has proposed that the State should take over the management of 50pc of the schools. The church proposes retaining control of 90pc. This does not strike me as a viable proposition. The Education Minister's proposal is more realistic.
But abortion is the really tricky question.
We have had three referendums on the issue of overturning the Supreme Court judgment in the "X" case, that a threat of suicide constitutes a danger to the life of a pregnant woman. All three attempts have failed. We don't want yet another. Instead, we should have legislation to determine the circumstances in which a termination of pregnancy may legally take place.
But let us leave aside for the moment the direct conflict between those who oppose abortion in any circumstances and those who approve of it in some circumstances. What circumstances? And on the reasonable assumption that most of us would answer "very restricted", can there be credible guarantees that they would remain restricted and that the actual regime would not amount to "abortion on demand"?
This argument is not suitable for an impassioned, confrontational campaign, such as we have known in the past.
I suggest that the Government should publish a paper setting out the options as coolly and objectively as possible, and follow it up with a series of consultations. There is plenty of time.
There has already been plenty of time -- too much -- for the subject I haven't mentioned. Yet in the years since it arrived on the agenda, we have never seen the text of the referendum on children's rights or heard any explanation of what has delayed it.
This is something I don't understand. Are there pressure groups, or legal experts, who think that asserting children's rights would undermine "the traditional family"? If so, let them tell us.
And while they are about it, let them tell us what measures they think we need to support an institution of which everybody approves but which has been shaken to its roots by our financial disasters and by the shredding of the church's authority.
I would be very happy to see the bishops taking part in a debate like that. If they do, I promise to listen. But if they want a mass audience, they will have to speak with clarity and objectivity. And humility.
Maybe Cloyne, and the shock of the reaction to it, will have given them a little lesson in this rarest of virtues.
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.