Madam, – A report in the paper (Home News, June 8th) mentions my reference to the perpetrators of abuse in Catholic-run institutions as the dregs of society during a lively debate on Radio Ulster on my article in the Irish Catholic, of May 28th. I regret very much this slip of the tongue, which has, understandably, caused offence. What I meant to say was intended to be in line with what I wrote in the article, namely: “The dregs of this, the negative side of traditional Irish Catholicism (which I had outlined briefly in the article) were in charge of the reformatories, etc.” I was not trying to find excuses for the cultural Catholicism for the horrors that occurred, nor was I trying to blame any particular class in society. I was simply trying to understand how such things could have happened.
To those I offended, I apologise unreservedly.
Later this week I read with dismay your report (Home News, June 11th) of the press conference in Maynooth where the Archbishop of Dublin was called on to comment on what I had said about “the Christian Brothers”. I never at any time mentioned the Christian Brothers or any other congregation by name.
I owe most of my primary and all of my secondary education to the Brothers, like countless thousands here and abroad. I remain forever grateful to them and grieve that the many are suffering for the sins of the few. – Yours, etc,
Madam, – In relation to the article “Abuse commission apologises for naming survivor”, regarding a 76-year-old survivor who was named in the Ryan report.
The Child Abuse Act as amended by Justice Ryan clearly indicated no one would be named in the Ryan report. The proof of this amendment is the fact that even the paedophiles were not named.
When the survivor who was named (and who lives in London) spoke to the commission spokeswoman, she clearly stated her willingness to travel to Dublin to discuss this matter with Mr Justice Ryan at a time convenient to her, which was June 9th, but was informed that the judge could not meet her on this date. Even as I write, the survivor is willing to travel to Ireland to seek a realistic answer to this major affront to her dignity and reputation, having now made arrangements for the care of her spouse.
This elderly lady has fought for 12 years to seek the impingement of her childhood conviction. Historical documents relating to one’s past are deemed by their content. The survivor’s detention order in this instant, clearly states “with what charged,” “sentence” and term of imprisonment. Ireland owes this fine lady a personal hearing. – Yours, etc,