Patsy McGarry, Religious Affairs Correspondent, concludes thebishops have been bruised by the trauma.
It made for "sombre reading", observed Prof Hannah McGee of the Time to Listen: Confronting Child Sexual Abuse by Catholic Clergy in Ireland report published in Dublin yesterday. One of the authors, she continued: "But it is not bleak and hopeless reading."
Of its many insights one of the most striking in the report is its illustration of the depression - and no other word seems quite as appropriate - that seems to have settled over Ireland's Catholic bishops where their handling of this tragedy is concerned.
Part of the study which led to the report was a postal survey of church personnel responsible for the management of clerical child sex abuse complaints. Conducted between July and December last year, this included writing to all 44 bishops in Ireland, North and South, including those retired. Of that number 35, or 80 per cent, responded.
Sixty-two per cent said they were "quite experienced" in dealing with complaints of clerical child sex abuse, while 29 per cent saw themselves as "inexperienced". Eighteen per cent had "not yet" dealt with such cases.
Just 41 per cent of the bishops were "satisfied" with how they had handled such complaints.
Bishops interviewed for the study spoke about the emphasis on preventing scandal. One said: "The whole instinct on our part is that we must protect the church, so let's try and deal with this quietly . . . scandal was always regarded as one of the really serious sins. It was seen as undermining the faith of the people and the credibility of the church."
Another said: "If something came up like this, a priest sexually involved with somebody even whether it was adult or child, you must protect the people from being scandalised by this fact. Therefore, if you can in some way fix it by keeping everything quiet, and I would say it was in some way regarded as legitimate, that it was better for everybody if this did not go into the public arena."
Lack of familiarity with the problem was seen as one of the main challenges to its effective management. This led bishops to seek the help of lawyers (civil and canon), psychiatrists and psychologists. In many cases these were as unfamiliar with the issue as the bishops. (The first specific treatment programme in Ireland for sex offenders was introduced in 1985.)
Generally however, the advice of psychologists/psychiatrists was sought by bishops before a priest who had abused children was allowed return to ministry. One bishop recalled how in the early 1980s "the local psychiatrist advised that this man \ now realised the wrongness of what he was doing and that he felt confident he would never do it again".
Another bishop said: "I don't want to be critical here because the psychiatrists I went to were very kind, very caring, very professional and very helpful, but they got it wrong. I followed wrong advice in good faith. I shouldn't have been sending the priest offender to a psychiatrist but to . . . one who specialised in this particular problem . . . that particular type of person didn't exist then, but they were beginning to surface in the 1990s."
Still another remembered: "We had a gentleman from the USA coming and supposedly preparing us for the fallout that had already hit the American church and saying that in certain situations up to 90 per cent of paedophiles can be successfully treated; 18 months later another psychologist came, saying the situation is that up to 90 per cent of them can't be treated."
Many priests interviewed felt the selection criteria for bishops, based on conservatism and orthodoxy, meant they were often not good managers or leaders. "The trouble is that you end up with a team of goalies and no strikers," a priest said.
One bishop admitted: "There is a kind of paralysis surrounding them [the bishops]. They have a narrow mindset. One of the difficulties of the church is that it is difficult for someone to let go of office, and one of the reasons is celibacy. All you have is your ministry, if you stay on too long you are not in touch."
Asked to indicate those aspects of the church organisation which impeded its effectiveness in dealing with clerical child sex abuse, the bishops listed five main reasons: the structure of the episcopate and the dioceses (with the concentration of authority in one person and work overload); the culture of secrecy; the lack of knowledge and sound professional advice; canon law; and the precedence of the organisation/institution over the individual/preventing scandal.
Half of the bishops gave themselves an "average" rating on a five-point scale, ranging from "excellent" to "poor", where their management and leadership skills were concerned. Just 35 per cent considered their skills in management and leadership to be "good", with 15 per cent considering themselves "fair". Most (89 per cent) felt they would benefit from management and leadership training.
Though they list measures such as the publication of the Framework Document, the setting up of a Child Protection Office in Maynooth and of the Bishops' Committee on Child Protection as helpful, it cannot be disguised that, as a body, Ireland's Catholic bishops have been badly bruised in the trauma that has followed the revelations of clerical child sex abuse.