NOREEN O'CONNOR,
Sir, - Statistics appear to be the latest line of defence for the Church's handling of abusive priests: Only 0.3 per cent of priests are paedophiles, most abuse occurs within families by perpetrators known to the victims, etc. etc.
We are well aware of these facts and figures and they are not the point. The point is that priests are in a position of trust and authority and have set themselves up as our moral and spiritual guides. They have abused that position both by the violation of the individuals concerned and by the subsequent response.
I was at Mass last Sunday in Greystones, Co Wicklow when a young priest, quietly and simply, denounced the attitude of the institution of the Church and called upon it to open its heart to the people and stop the posturing and the wriggling.
The congregation broke into spontaneous applause, something I have never experienced before. Outside the church after Mass, people were shaking his hand and thanking him for saying what he said, and for his bravery and honesty.
It's a pity there aren't a few more like him running the show and fewer statisticians and lawyers on a mission of damage limitation. If the Hierarchy is not very, very careful, it might find itself left behind as a new, more honest and less bureaucratic church emerges. - Yours, etc.,
NOREEN O'CONNOR,
Killerisk,
Tralee,
Co Kerry.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
Sir, - I have been very careful, in commenting on my case of clerical abuse, to be accurate so I would like to correct a report on your front page today of April 11th which stated that I had said an official in the Dublin archdiocese was "angry with \ for reporting the abuse". The diocese did not react this way to my reporting the abuse. What I said in my statement was: "In April when I passed to the Garda a letter from Mgr Stenson to me which showed Father McGuinness had admitted the abuse, he said he might take me to law over it."
This diocesan officer was angry with me for passing his letter, which helped to substantiate the case against my abuser, to the Garda. This happened in 1996, not 1997, and my meeting with the Archbishop was also in 1996, not 1997.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank all those people - friends, family, members of my parish and so many others - who have been supportive of me in these recent difficult days. I appreciate that for some such as Damien O'Farrell (April 5th) this has taken courage and I would particularly like him to know how much his words meant to me. - Yours, etc.,
MARIE COLLINS,
Firhouse,
Dublin 24.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
Sir, - The recent meeting of the Catholic Hierarchy and the statement which resulted from it represents yet another missed opportunity in dealing with the issue of clerical sex abuse. Hiding behind legal jargon and the remnants of their authority will do nothing either to help those who have been abused by that same authority or to reassure those who are, rightly, deeply concerned about its consequences.
The resignation of the Bishop of Ferns will not, and should not, be the end of the matter, but at least it is a gesture that is readily understood by all concerned. As such it is to be commended.
The time for dealing with this matter in a narrow, legalistic sense is past. Other gestures of common humanity are long overdue. - Yours, etc.,
G.D. CORRECTOR,
Essex Drive,
Glasgow,
Scotland.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
Sir, - Cardinal Connell has given the explanation that the Dublin Archdiocese could not confirm to gardaí a priest's admission of child sex abuse because the priest had not been warned the admission could be used in evidence against him (The Irish Times, April 10th).
To me, this explanation is disingenuous as the Cardinal appears to be deliberately confusing the responsibilities of a bishop with the responsibilities of a police officer. As I understand it, a police officer, when formally interviewing a suspect, must issue such a caution but there is no such obligation on a bishop.
Except in the case of confession, the relationship between bishop and priest is not legally privileged where the bishop becomes aware of a crime committed by a priest. Indeed, in such a case it is most likely that the bishop, in common with any other citizen, is legally obliged to report such information to An Garda Síochána.
Cardinal Connell's explanation confirms once again that the Catholic Church's response to the problem of clerical child sexual abuse is to seek to avoid its moral responsibility and to protect its financial assets by hiding behind legalities, both civil and canonical. The interests of the institutional Church and its clerical members are deemed to be of much greater importance than the well-being of victims.
Instead of a Christ-like response guided by the Gospel values as preached to us by these self-same clerics, the Church Hierarchy employs the most expensive lawyers in the land to vigorously deny and defend claims against it. One is forced to ask: what sort of faith do these people really have? Do they really believe in the values of the Gospel and the doctrines of the Catholic Church? Do they really believe that Christ was the Son of God who was crucified to atone for our sins but then rose from the dead, and that his body and blood are now really present every time the sacrament of the Eucharist is celebrated?
For if they really believed in the Catholic Church's deposit of faith, how could they have just wrung their hands when they knew that priests were having sex with children ? - Yours, etc.,
SYLVESTER MURPHY,
Gorey,
Co Wexford.