It is obvious that the deal on the payment of compensation to the victims of abuse in industrial schools which Michael Woods concluded with Catholic religious orders is a disaster for the State. What has not been said with sufficient clarity is that it is also a disaster for the Church, writes Fintan O'Toole
Last June, the Catholic Primate, Archbishop Sean Brady, spoke about the abuse of children by a small number of priests. He told a press conference announcing the establishment of the Church's internal audit of abuse cases that "only when we establish the truth, acknowledge our failures, ask pardon for the wrong that has been done and implement the recommendation of the audit, can we hope to receive the mercy of God and the forgiveness of our brothers and sisters".
This is an admirable summary of what constitutes a basic moral response to the knowledge that you have done wrong. You face the truth, acknowledge your failure and ask for forgiveness.
Yet the Woods deal comes down, from the point of view of the Church, to a statement that it was all somebody else's responsibility. After 2,000 years of Christian history, we are left with the morality of Bart Simpson: "I didn't do it, nobody saw me do it, you can't prove anything."
This has become increasingly clear as the Conference of Religious of Ireland has sought to defend the deal. Sister Helena O'Donoghue of CORI has been on Saturday View and Morning Ireland over the last few days telling us that the deal is "just and moral". She has seemed to suggest that the orders are really doing us a favour by making a small contribution to the overall cost of compensation.
There is no acknowledgement of institutional responsibility on the part of the congregations who ran the industrial school system. She admits that "wrongdoing of a very serious nature was done by a small number within those congregations". But almost in the same breath she distances the orders from any blame for allowing children to be enslaved and abused.
Even the small amount of money and property which CORI agreed to hand over is not an admission of any responsibility. "It was a voluntary contribution. It wasn't commanded or demanded By making the contribution, no fault is by that contribution attributed to people who never had fault anyway." Aside from the gross misuse of public money, the deal is scandalous because it validates this evasion of responsibility.
The State has owned up to its part in the terrible story of the industrial schools and ought to bear a significant part of the financial burden. But let's remember that the State didn't torture or rape or enslave children.
IF THE orders do not now accept that they have a collective responsibility for what was done by their members, why did they issue all those apologies?
Why, in November 1998, when Brother Jack Kelly admitted 53 charges of sexual assault and gross indecency on boys, did the Christian Brothers as a whole apologise to all his victims?
Why, when he was celebrating the bicentenary of the founding of the Christian Brothers and the Presentation Brothers, did Cardinal Connell feel it necessary to acknowledge the crimes of some of their members and apologise for "the most unspeakable harm and suffering caused to their victims and the grave scandal that has resulted"? Why have other orders issued collective apologies if they do not accept collective responsibility?
By signing a deal which contains no acknowledgment of fault, CORI has undermined all of these apologies and pleas for forgiveness.
It has also, disastrously, undermined itself. Over the last 20 years, CORI's Justice Office, under Sean Healy and Brigid Reynolds, has gained great moral credibility by its sustained championing of the poor and the marginalised. It has engaged in a detailed argument about economic justice and the choices which have to be made in public spending. At a time when the Church as a whole has been in deep trouble, this voice has reminded us of the other side of the Catholic story.
Yet the money which the religious orders are saving through the Woods deal will almost certainly come from State funds which would otherwise go to the poor and weak. The Government's record suggests that these are the areas in which expenditure is optional. At a conservative estimate, the extra cost to the Exchequer from the Woods deal, as opposed to a fair 50/50 arrangement, is at least €250 million. Whatever way you argue it, that's a quarter of a billion euros which will be taken from the most needy people.
This is, quite simply, immoral. It is morally wrong to evade responsibility for a terrible wrong that has been done. It is morally wrong to protect one's own interests at the expense of the poor. A church which wanted to restore its credibility after a decade of trauma would be saying these things itself, not hiding from them.