The Cedar Lounge Revolution

The past is the present… Part 5. The next phase of the scandal… May 26, 2009

A concise, if yet again depressing, piece by Mary Raftery addresses the next phase of the institutional child abuse issue, where the right goes next in terms of defending the indefensible. First up one must note that the noises coming out of the hierarchy, while not perhaps progressive, are at least sane in terms of accepting that the deal struck between orders and Michael Woods was entirely inadequate and… let’s be clear, unjust. The position of CORI on this, and its constituent elements, is – as I’ve noted previously – particularly disappointing. And as with all aspects of this issue it’s the sort of position that calls into question all manner of things, not least their statements on other issues across the last decade or so.

In the former minister’s media appearances we heard arguments the religious will likely use…

IT IS easy to discount former government minister and senior Fianna Fáil member Michael Woods. A former minister, he is no longer a prominent figure. He has, however, left a festering sore behind him which continues to weep poison every now and then.

The infamous church-State deal on redress for victims of institutional child abuse, under which the religious orders pay a mere 10 per cent of the compensation bill, was at its most septic over the weekend.

Woods, the main architect of the deal, defended it on the television news and gave a long RTÉ radio interview on Saturday. We were beginning to hear some of the defences likely to be chosen by religious conservatives as soon as they manage to regroup and fight back.

I like the term ‘religious conservatives’. We’ve already heard a lot from them (by the by, and as noted on another thread here, Kevin Myers offered us one of the most specious and – in light of his own position on many many matters historic – arguably entirely hypocritical apologia one might imagine). But what of this?

First among these is that it was all the fault of the State. To this end, Woods uttered his first untruth: “the Department of Education had control, management role, organisation”.

It is a simple fact that the department had no management role within the industrial school system – management was exclusively a matter for the religious orders. This has been legally determined in recent years by two separate High Court judges. However, while this may be the strict legal position, it is apparent from the Ryan report that, morally speaking, church and State were to blame in equal part for the abuse suffered by so many thousands of children. It is thus peculiar to see Woods, as a former cabinet minister, exaggerate the responsibility of the State and minimise the culpability of the Catholic Church. It makes you wonder who exactly he was representing all those years he was in government.

Well yes. And no prizes for guessing. He represents the traditional relationship between Church and State in this polity. Deference. Obsequiousness. Aversion to reality. But contradictions abound in this entire exercise.

Returning to his radio interview, he went on to state that “when the government went into this in the first place, we saw and we knew the kinds of things that had happened”.

Interesting to contrast this with the evidence he gave at a public hearing of the Ryan commission in 2004. Asked if he had formed a view as to how much abuse had occurred in the institutions, he replied: “No, not really, because we hadn’t enough information at that time.”

The time he was referring to was the period during which he was negotiating the church-State deal on compensation with the religious orders.

Rafterty continues:

Nonetheless, as he said on Saturday, the State was taking full responsibility “and it was a question of whether the religious orders would make a contribution towards that”.

Well, no, actually – that was not the question. It was instead whether the religious orders wanted to buy an indemnity from the State for the amount on offer, namely €127 million. In other words, for that amount they could get the taxpayer to foot the bill for all future damages found against them.

Woods explained that the congregations said at the time that they had estimated their legal liability at under €60 million should they have to fight the court cases on their own. It appears that he believed them. What he did not mention was that their estimate was based on a belief that only about 10 per cent of cases against them would succeed, in other words that they would fight and beat in court nine out of every 10 victims who sued them.

The congregations’ confidence in such a high attrition rate was based on the protection afforded to them under the statute of limitations. This is a simple piece of legislation limiting the time after an injury during which a legal case can be taken.

What’s most shameful about this is that event the most shallow of soundings on the part of the congregations would have indicated that the numbers claiming entirely legitimately would be far far in excess of 10%, would indeed be most likely (and again note Myers rather mealy mouthed reference to unwarranted allegations) to be the majority of them. And they didn’t have to take any soundings at all for they knew that this was the case.

And here the state becomes more culpable, because it is intrinsically a partner in maintaining a grim status quo that protects the congregations.

The statute, however, could have been altered, lifted or amended at any time, and indeed in the wake of the States of Fear documentaries in 1999 it was suspended for a short period to allow those sexually abused to pursue their legal actions. Victims of physical abuse, though, were specifically excluded from the exemption. What is clear is that without the statute, the exposure of the religious orders would be hugely magnified. And therein should lie the key to government strategy on how to renegotiate the abysmal church-State deal.

Arguing palpable bad faith on the part of the religious orders – entirely reasonable on foot of the Ryan report revelations – the State should break the deal. It follows that it must then lift the statute of limitations for all cases of child abuse, not just sexual assault, as the only way to permit victims to seek appropriate legal remedy against the religious orders.

This would open the floodgates on the religious orders, who would have to defend against a tidal wave of abuse cases not only in their institutions but crucially also in their day schools. Given that there is hardly anyone in Ireland over the age of about 45 who was not beaten in school – often far in excess of what was permitted under Department of Education rules – hundreds of thousands of cases could ensue.

That may or may not come to pass. But I’m personally glad I come in just under that age limit and that the schools I went to were amongst the first to jettison corporal punishment. Note though another point Raftery makes:

And, of course, as we know from the recent Louise O’Keeffe case, the State carries no legal responsibility for abuse suffered by children in schools. The entire liability for decades of violence against children in schools and institutions rests with either religious orders or with the bishops who continue to appoint schools’ boards of management.

This then brings the hierarchy into the picture. Michael Woods was at pains on Saturday to claim that none of this concerns the Catholic Church itself, but rather the religious orders – a somewhat Jesuitical distinction. The truth is that the entire church edifice is compromised, morally, legally and potentially financially. This appalling vista may well have dawned on the bishops.

Absolutely. This is a dagger pointed right at the heart of the Catholic Church on this island, and in particular in this state. One can try to pretend that the orders are in some sense apart from the RCC, but that is far from the case. They are a central element of the Catholic Church. If they fall their fall will inflict enormous damage on what residual authority remains with the Church. In Martin there is a chance that at least some openness will be evident, and it is good to see him eschew the comfortable and deceitful rhetoric of some of our right wing commentators on this matter. But rhetoric is insufficient – and I’d argue that it is insufficient both in a moral sense as regards the necessity to make amends as best as is possible for past crimes inflicted on the defenceless and in order to preserve the Church as a legitimate entity. And Raftery believes that the penny may have dropped with the hierarchy on this matter.

But note this next statement of hers:

However, the religious orders are tough customers. The Christian Brothers, in particular, have been fighting off similar demands for compensation across three continents for the past two decades, ever since their appalling abuse of children in Canada and Australia was revealed.

This is astounding stuff. There’s the oldest cliche in the book, but it seems somehow appropriate. Have they no sense of shame? No sense of responsibility? I’ve said it before, but it repays being said again. They are part of an entity that has harangued and berated and in certain instances imposed upon the Irish people a very specific morality across a protracted period of time. And yet when they are asked to step up and deal with appalling and grievous wrongs committed by their members, – and not just a few isolated individuals but institution wide networks of brutality, cruelty and the rape of children – they retreat into a narrow legalism whose only purpose is to protect them financially.

Raftery concludes:

As the Ryan report points out, deference and submissiveness characterised the government’s dealings with the Catholic Church during much of the 20th century. It was clear that little had changed during the negotiation of the church-State deal in 2002.

Today, the Government faces a clear choice: will it continue its supine and cowed attitude – so disastrous in the past for the children of Ireland – or will it at last on our behalf stand up to those who have bullied and intimidated us all for so long?

One thing is for sure… in light of the statement from the congregations, which goes as follows, there is no sense that they will concede without a fight:

“At our meeting in Dublin this morning, we again recognise and accept the gravity of the findings and conclusions contained in the Ryan Report. We fully accept that we seriously failed vulnerable people while in our care and that we have an on-going responsibility to try to meet their needs.

“Rather than re-opening the terms of the agreement reached with Government in 2002, we reiterate our commitment to working with those who suffered enormously while in our care. We must find the best and most appropriate ways of directly assisting them.

“We will meet again in the coming days to explore the detail of our responses.”

The absurdity of the same institutions who were responsible for such wrongs proposing that they be the ones who ‘find the best and most appropriate ways of directly assisting them’ is self-evident, and perhaps indicative of a consuming, and near monstrous, arrogance as to their place in the world and a crushing insensitivity as regards the crimes committed by their members, and more or less indirectly themselves.

As was noted elsewhere, if it were any other element within Irish society, there is little question but that it would have been shut down. Little question at all.