Madam, - Patsy McGarry (Opinion & Analysis, February 6th) quotes my remark on TV3's The Political Party that many traditional Catholics "just don't understand and don't see the point of what Cardinal Connell's lawyers have done. They do see it as a kind of cover-up mentality".
For the sake of completeness, I would like to refer to another comment I made on that programme, to the effect that those who know Cardinal Connell personally would understand the public perception of his actions, but would not see him as engaging in a cover-up or seeking to hinder the process of truth-telling.
We don't know enough about what is contained in the disputed documents to allow us to speculate in a fair and informed way about the Cardinal's motivation.
But there are three statements that can reasonably be made. One, it is possible that there are respectable and selfless reasons to invoke lawyer-client privilege and/or the confidentiality of documents. Two, when people in the media ask what those who invoke lawyer-client privilege are "trying to hide", they are, in effect, frustrating people's time-honoured rights by inviting the court of public opinion to reach a negative verdict in the absence of the necessary facts. This may have unfortunate consequences for other citizens in the future.
Three, the Church and victims of abuse depend on this commission's willingness and ability to give a full and honest account of what the church in Dublin knew and what actions it took in relation to allegations of abuse.
Given the complexity of the situation, the sensitivities involved and the established perceptions (just and otherwise) of the church's handling of abuse cases, we can reasonably, though not infallibly, question the prudence of seeking to assert lawyer-client privilege, even if with the best of intentions. - Yours, etc,
Senator RÓNÁN MULLEN, Ahascragh, Co Galway.