In his recent autobiography, John McGahern describes the routine brutality of his teachers when he was at school in the 1940s. "I have seen men my own age grow strange with anger when recalling their schoolings," he writes. " . . . Once anything is licensed it can grow monstrous and be scarcely noticed".
In a brushstroke he conveys much that we have struggled to comprehend in the present generation, not merely about the past use of corporal punishment in the education system but horrors such as Artane and Letterfrack that society, in its 21st-century enlightenment, is at a loss to comprehend.
How, we often ask, is it possible, in an ostensibly civilised society, for such barbarism to be sanctioned by law and culture?
But in this we are being less than honest. There are barbarisms in our own time, in their own ways just as bad. For 10 years I have been writing about something I know future generations will hear about and be equally unable to comprehend: the family courts, where on a daily basis parents and children are routinely brutalised by people regarded as good and decent. Every week, the judgments I hear about seem more arbitrary, more callous, and yet the victims are as ignored as the schoolchildren of 1940s Ireland in their own time.
The secrecy afforded by the in camera rule is in part responsible for the lack of public outrage. But there is also in the public conversation a loop of illogic that enables a fatal evasion, ie if the family courts are sanctioned by law, the stories about them can't really be true.
The latest horror story to drop in my in-tray is that of a father whose children have recently been taken into foster care by the Health Service Executive (HSE). I will call the man "K" and must blur and alter some of the details to protect the evildoers.
About four years ago, K's wife, still in her early 40s, suffered a debilitating illness and required heavy medication.
K was left to raise their several children, all under five, while his wife spent months in hospital. He was coping well until he approached the HSE for financial help with childcare costs.
This help was extended, but now his family had come under notice from the most twisted and unaccountable force in the State. When his wife returned home, social workers continued to call, and this added to the stress on his marriage, already in difficulty as a result of his wife's deteriorated mental condition.
K became increasingly concerned when one day the social workers asked him to leave the house so they could speak to his wife alone. Shortly afterwards, a woman came to their front door and said she was a friend and wished to take his wife out for coffee.
Some time later, K discovered she was connected with a local "domestic violence" group. K is adamant that there had never been any violence of any kind in their relationship: the "issue", according to HSE files, was that K was excessively in "control" of his wife by virtue of her dependence on him.
Then one day his wife returned with five social workers to the family home where he was minding his children.
They had just been to a "case conference" at which K's wife had been persuaded that the children should "go away for a few days". The social workers physically restrained K while they removed his children.
The next day K was served with notice of a barring order hearing, this application having been made by the HSE. With the father barred from the home, there was nobody fit to take care of the children and, inevitably, the executive took the children into care, and a month later applied for a care order to validate this.
In effect, therefore, a barring order was used to circumvent the higher burden of proof required in obtaining a care order. No written pleadings are required for a barring order application, whereas with a care order, pleadings must be produced at least a week beforehand.
Since then, the social workers have allowed only restricted contact between father and children, initially one hour per week, supervised.
On one contact visit, one of K's daughters gave him a note saying she was afraid of the social workers and, when he raised this with the HSE, all contact was terminated.
In the past year he has had a total of 50 hours contact with his children. He last saw them a month ago and does not know when he will see them again. But a mighty judgment is on the way. One day, the children whose very spirits are being stolen by the deranged automatons operating this evil system will return to claim retribution.
I confidently predict that, a generation from now, the ones being rushed in and out of courtrooms with coats over their heads will be the present-day custodians of this lawless system.
Meanwhile, it seems I may have to spend another decade trying to alert this society to what is happening under its nose. So be it.