Taoiseachs First Duty Is to the Memory of the Abused, Irish Times, September 6, 2011

Taoiseach's First Duty Is to the Memory of the Abused

Irish Times
September 6, 2011

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2011/0906/1224303587726.html

"The institutionalisation of young women and the kidnapping and adoption of their babies required complicity by the Catholic Church and the State, by the professions and a wide section of Irish society . . . This country has much to be ashamed of in that respect."Photograph: Reuters

OPINION: Going toe to toe with the Vatican is less important than reconstructing the memory of those who suffered abuse in Catholic institutions, writes DERMOT KEOGH

AN OPPORTUNITY has been provided by the tone and content of the Holy See’s reply to Taoiseach Enda Kenny and Tanaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs Eamon Gilmore to normalise relations between Ireland and the Vatican, and to conduct daily discussions again at ambassadorial level.

This will mean, as soon as is practicable, the nomination of a new apostolic nuncio to Ireland and the Government’s appointment of a new ambassador to the Holy See.

A spokesman for the Holy See, when urged at a press conference at the weekend to respond to the Taoiseach’s direct criticisms, backed away politely but firmly. The Holy See is seeking to keep the lines of communication open for professional exchanges, and at a long remove from the counterproductive practice of megaphone diplomacy. The latter option will serve nobody’s interests.

There is now a chink of light coming from a door half ajar, and both sides should avail of it. After all, both the Holy See and the State have set the protection of children and their safeguarding from the evils of sexual abuse as their highest priority. Both entities, therefore, ought to set about ensuring that the lines of communication are clear and that those entrusted with the task of serving at ambassadorial level are well equipped for the job. In a previous article I attempted to construct how the Holy See might have interpreted Kenny’s speech. I, too, was critical of that part of the Taoiseach’s speech that related to the Holy See. I felt the language was very loose and the accusations imprecise. I did not doubt for an instant his bona fides as a politician determined to place the protection of children as a primary goal of the Government. It is to be regretted that other very important aspects of his speech were overshadowed by the subsequent diplomatic row.

Kenny’s speech reflected his great frustration in trying to deal with such a critical area of policy.

Notwithstanding the extensive passage in the Holy See’s response explaining the context in which the 1997 letter was sent to the Irish bishops by then papal nuncio Luciano Storero, it was – to employ understatement and irony – less than the Holy See’s finest diplomatic hour. It was, as drafted, a disaster. The context in which it was sent to the bishops was a greater disaster.

What is missing from the discussion is knowledge of the reaction of members of the Irish hierarchy to the letter at the time. They must have been infuriated by its timing and content. The letter was very unhelpful. What matters historically is how it was interpreted at the time by those senior clerics who disagreed with mandatory reporting.

The Holy See’s response describes government thinking on mandatory reporting in the mid-1990s. It is important to end the current controversy that individual bishops voice their views on what they felt when they received the letter. Did it cause discussion within the Irish Catholic Bishops’ Conference?

To ensure the protection of children, immediate efforts should be made to bring the Catholic Church and the State together to chart the way forward. An immediate meeting between the Government and representatives of the hierarchy on that topic would go some way to trying to focus again on the most important priority: the working of church and State in concert to eliminate the evil of child sexual abuse from the country.

That the 1997 letter was a disaster should be acknowledged by church and State. That may remove a roadblock to dialogue and co-operation.

The Government’s next response to the Holy See does not, however, require a raking over the coals of the Taoiseach’s July speech. I do not agree that there is an onus on Kenny to substantiate allegations in his speech, and one in particular referring to the actions of the Holy See three years ago.

There is universal recognition and approval of Kenny’s leadership in the area of child care. That is the basis on which the triangular co-operation between the Holy See, the Irish hierarchy and the Government must be based. To do otherwise would be to invite a further round of diplomatic clarifications and so postpone a return to normalcy.

A July speech, Mark II, and the prolongation of acrimony, would not serve the interests of the State’s vulnerable children.

Thanks to Kenny’s prioritisation of a children-first policy, the State may, for the first time in its history, face up to its responsibilities in this vital area. The 1916 proclamation and the 1919 democratic programme, so high on aspiration, might in this one regard yet become a reality.

That, if it comes to pass, will be long remembered, while aspects of the July speech will remain a matter of debate among historians. The Taoiseach can lead the first government in the history of the State to give such a high priority to child protection, welfare and rights. That is what has come to be expected by the voters and it will not be easy in a time of recession.

Part of that policy of healing and justice, will require a full acknowledgement of the failures of successive governments since the foundation of the State to protect children from exploitation and from abuse. As taoiseach, Bertie Ahern made a formal apology. But a much more comprehensive approach is now called for to take into account those tens of thousands of children and young women whose rights as citizens of the State were abused and traduced in State-funded, religious-run institutions.

Kevin Rudd, then prime minister of Australia, made a formal apology in February 2008 for government policy which resulted in the “stolen generations” of aboriginal children being forcibly removed from their families and put “in care”. More recently, Catholic Church authorities in Australia apologised in July this year for the forced adoption of children of 150,000 mothers. It is hard to believe such a figure could be correct.

Was Ireland, from the foundation of the State, any different or any better? Children were taken from their families and put in industrial schools for the scantiest of reasons.

My maternal grandfather spent four years in St Joseph’s industrial school in Tralee because his father’s newly acquired second wife put him out on the side of the road. He was trained to be a farm labourer and never spoke about his experiences in incarceration.

There were thousands more like him. How many young girls, in service in big houses or in the big farmhouses, were victims of rape and put in institutions because they were pregnant? They were violated a second time when their children were taken from them for forced adoption. The institutionalisation of young women and the kidnapping and adoption of their babies required complicity by church and State, by the professions and by a wide section of Irish society. There were many so-called “bystanders” when these crimes were committed against the weakest and most vulnerable. This country has much to be ashamed of in that respect.

Argentina’s government has provided a template of what should be done, by reconstructing the memory of the 30,000 who disappeared in the 1970s “dirty war” and of the thousands of others who were illegally detained and tortured. I have seen the value of that work at first hand.

In this country, a similar project ought to be initiated to help reconstruct the memory of those who suffered, and to mark the graves of children buried outside consecrated ground. It is long overdue for the memory of those deeds to be retrieved and recorded as part of the history of the State. Kenny has an opportunity to set such a process in motion.

He should not waste time slugging it out, toe to toe, with the Holy See. He has set the Government a far more important task.