Sir, – Sexual abuse has nothing whatsoever to do with “friendship crossing a boundary line”, as suggested by Bishop John Kirby (Front Page, September 6th). Nor was there ever a time when we perceived things in that way, certainly not between adults and children.
It is unnecessary to be aware of the pathology of paedophilia to know that sexual contacts between priests and dependent children are always a despicable evil, both morally and criminally.
The cover-up of abuse mostly led to the enablement of further abuse. The directly guilty could rely on the church hierarchy to protect their “good reputation” – as well as their livelihood. In consequence, the enablers stand side-by-side with the direct perpetrators in moral responsibility for lives destroyed. It is time for a massive acknowledgement of responsibility by the hierarchy, including such tarnished figures as Bishop Kirby and Cardinal Brady. And that can only mean resignation. Words of regret mean nothing, if not accompanied by practical steps of atonement and restitution to the victims.
No one in any institute has more power than a bishop in his diocese. Without corresponding accountability, there can be no hope for the real change that is becoming desperately urgent within the church. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – As the possibility looms of yet another referendum, I for one will not be accepting moral guidance from persons who consider child sexual abuse to be no more than friendship gone wrong. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – The response to the latest shocking revelations of clerical sex abuse have included calls for new Garda inquiries and investigations. Your Editorial of September 6th suggests that these might expose similar tragic conclusions, but what is perhaps most glaring is the pathetic response of church authorities to the enormous deficiencies in their culture of accountability and, most especially, their capacity to hold those responsible for poor practice to account by promptly replacing those with damaged credentials.
All of the bishops made a unanimous decision in 2007 to mandate their safeguarding board to conduct audits of safeguarding practices and policies in dioceses and congregations.
But three years later there had been no progress whatsoever because a review of data protection issues had become submerged in a quagmire of inertia, while some apparently viewed a monitoring process with deep suspicion. This development was greeted with undisguised concern by the chairman and members of the safeguarding board in March 2011.
The 2009 annual report of the safeguarding board confirmed that the Bishop of Clonfert, then bishop of that diocese for 21 years, did not even have a child safeguarding representative in any of his parishes.
There have been vacancies for a bishop in four dioceses, some for several years, following the resignation of previous incumbents when their oversight of child safeguarding practices was severely criticised. At least three other bishops remain in office, despite robust public criticism of their capacity to lead.
The church is judged by its deeds and decisions, not by its apologies and excuses. There is little evidence of new thinking or a fundamental strategic response to major deficiencies in organisational structure, leadership and personnel.
A root-and-branch remediation is long overdue and there is not the remotest prospect of moving forward to inspire public confidence until this is in place, no matter how many investigations are embarked on. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – The most recent report on child sexual abuse by Catholic priests and the systematic cover-up by Catholic Church authorities again confirms the church’s culpable ignorance, wilful neglect and total disregard of the welfare and rights of children.
The hierarchy’s overriding concern has always been and remains the reputation of the institutional church.
It therefore beggars belief that our Government, and indeed our society in general, continues to allow this organisation to have primary control of our children’s education in their most formative and vulnerable years. A persistent offender in school deserves expulsion. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – The Catholic Church, through obfuscation and asset protection, has protected itself while those who have suffered are compensated primarily by the taxpayer and not the institutions responsible.
Why do we not use the Criminal Assets Bureau to relieve the institutions that have perpetrated these atrocities of their assets which, by the hypocrisy of their continued misdeeds, should be deemed to be ill-gotten, and essentially the proceeds of illegal activities? – Yours, etc,
Sir, – Bishop Kirby, in addition to his involvement as a patron of national schools funded by the State, is also the chairman of Trócaire, a wonderful charity in receipt of significant Government and international funding.
This charity includes the fight for justice as one of its primary objectives.
Does the board of Trócaire continue to believe Bishop Kirby is an appropriate chairman? I for one will not be giving it a further penny while he remains on the board. – Yours, etc,