Sir, – The recalling for consultations by a friendly state of its diplomatic representative here should provide a reality check for the Government.
This démarche by the Holy See can hardly have been unexpected. The crude and intemperate language of the Taoiseach’s Dáil speech and the hectoring and bullying tone of the Tánaiste’s utterances in the media have no place in the conduct of international relations.
The consequences of this unnecessary diplomatic crisis should not be underestimated.
Our country’s reputation in diplomatic circles can now be credibly compared to the junk status of Irish government bonds on the international financial markets. Who is responsible for this? Did the Taoiseach draft his own speech or was it the work of one of his special advisers?
It is certainly not written in the careful, measured language of the experienced career civil servants in Merrion Street. They would have consulted their colleagues in Iveagh House.
The likely consequences of the use of megaphone diplomacy in the conduct of international relations would have figured large in any such consultation.
We should not have to wait until the relevant papers are released under the 30-year rule to get answers to these questions. – Yours, etc,
A chara, – Paddy Agnew reports that Cardinal Bernard Law is a regular guest at the Irish Embassy to the Holy See, “often saying grace prior to dinner” (Home News, July 22nd).
Another compelling reason to save money for the taxpayers and close our embassy to the Holy See! – Is mise,
Sir, – The recalling of a diplomat of ambassador rank is a very serious matter, only one step down from the breaking off of diplomatic relations.
Thus it must be understood that for the papal nuncio to be recalled to Rome indicates the extreme displeasure and anger in the Vatican at the Taoiseach for his condemnation of the Vatican for its dereliction of its moral responsibility in this latest revelation of recent reprehensible action in the shameful and sinful matter of child abuse. His rebuke has stung, obviously.
There can be no doubt whatsoever that the whole government of the Vatican, including the Pope, were involved in the decision on how to respond. These are not, by any means, stupid people. In my opinion what they, including Pope Benedict, decided to do was meant to intimidate.
The focus of the reaction was not, as it should have been, on the gross and sinful error of the church covering up heinous sexual crimes.
This truth cannot be stated less starkly. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – As a practising Catholic and member of the Fine Gael party, I was inspired by Mr Kenny’s Dáil speech to read the Cloyne report for myself. It soon became embarrassingly clear that Mr Kenny had not done so, and I fear he will come to regret some of his vitriol.
It is my earnest hope that, when the Vatican issues its response to the Government, Mr Kenny takes some time to study it and to respond in a manner befitting An Taoiseach.
The hour requires a statesman, not an opportunist demagogue. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – I wholeheartedly support Enda Kenny’s statement regarding the Catholic hierarchy and its ineffectiveness in dealing with the child abuse issue. It is about time that institution was stood up to and shown up for that it is – an elitist group of men, prancing about in “frocks”, protecting their “realm” and living in cloud cuckoo land.
Well done, Taoiseach, for your coverage in distancing the State from the church. It was long overdue. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – Fr Vincent Twomey (Opinion & Analysis, July 25th) goes to great lengths to point out that the Irish church had already made it mandatory to report incidents of abuse. What I find most disturbing is that they felt it necessary for the reporting of such cases to be mandatory at all. Where the safety of a child or young person is at risk, I would hope that a report to the relevant authorities be voluntary, and immediate. This is not an issue of canon or State law but one of moral obligation. – Yours, etc,
Madam, – The logic of the proposal that Catholic priests should be compelled to reveal the secrets of the confessional to the police in the case of paedophile sins is that this would be extended, after a period, to include such misdemeanours as fraud and wilful murder, if these serious sins are still considered to be crimes in the Republic of Ireland.
Of course, the proposal was never intended seriously and could never be made law for reasons that are too obvious to be stated.
Perhaps the furore served to get the Government over a difficult patch by pushing the economic car crash on to the inner pages for a few days.
Nevertheless, the cold-blooded cynicism of the whole thing is chilling – even to an Englishman. – Yours, etc,
A chara, – Bugs in the confessional? Garda sting operations? Do we honestly expect elderly clergy to leap out of the confessional to rugby tackle certain categories of penitents? And does anyone honestly foresee an abuser using confession if they think for a moment they will be reported? The only result would be that a chance would be lost to persuade the abuser to desist or turn themselves in.
But frankly I think this proposal is a distraction from the real issue. This country needs a working child protection policy. Our children deserve it. And those who have been abused in the past deserve it too, so they can know that something good has come out of their misery. – Is mise,
Sir, – For the people who still go to confession, will they be allowed to wear a balaclava to protect their anonymity? – Yours, etc,
Sir, – I was astonished by Breda O’Brien’s article (Opinion & Analysis, July 23rd).
Ms O’Brien seems to be unable to set aside her unyielding, subjective support for the Vatican and look at this issue through the prism of the vulnerable and young victims of clerical child sex abuse who are at the heart of the matter.
Ms O’Brien takes particular offence at the Taoiseach’s charge that the Vatican frustrated and obstructed the Cloyne inquiry, writing it is “convenient” to blame the institution.
This is the same institution that Judge Yvonne Murphy concluded “effectively gave individual Irish bishops the freedom to ignore the procedures which they had agreed” and which was “entirely unhelpful” to any bishop who wanted to implement the agreed procedures.
Chapter four of the report confirms that Irish bishops sought recognition from Rome to give the framework document canon law status, but it was not forthcoming from the Vatican.
If this does not constitute an attempt to frustrate then what, I ask, does?
Furthermore, her attempt to liken the Taoiseach’s attack on a weakened Vatican to “someone offering to step into the ring with a Muhammad Ali with Parkinson’s” is grossly distasteful and ill-judged. By drawing parallels between a failed institution that turned its face away from decades of the systematic abuse of vulnerable children, and someone blighted with this degenerative disorder, Ms O’Brien is painting the Vatican as a victim, a view which is wildly out of kilter with the vast majority of Irish public opinion.
Astonishingly, Ms O’Brien proceeds to extend her staunch defence of the institution to the management of the west Donegal school that oversaw the re-engagement of a convicted sex offender.
I find her latest instalment a tragic display of journalism that, to paraphrase An Taoiseach, upholds the primacy of the institution of the church, its power, standing and reputation. – Yours, etc,