A chara, – Vincent Twomey appeals to the “very nature of a modern democracy” to justify preservation of sacerdotal privilege (Opinion Analysis, July 25th).
On this he is utterly misguided. Free exercise of religion is a core value in modern democratic regimes with liberal value systems. But when exercise of religion is privileged over and above the protection of children and the proper course of justice, the democratic regime and the value system that supports it are gravely undermined.
Our society permits a religious space, which may be inhabited by anyone who wishes to do so. But that space is private, not public. Public concerns such as the protection of children from sexual abuse and the effective prosecution of child sex abusers unequivocally override any conventions associated with religious practice. – Is mise,
Sir, – Vincent Twomey serves his argument badly by his reference to St John Nepomuk. Nepomuk’s death at the command of his king is held by most scholars to have been a result of a dispute over an abbacy rather than due to a refusal to break the seal of the confessional. It is a sad but true historical fact that church and state tend to fall out with each other more about property than they do about conscience. – Yours, etc,
Dr JOHN McCAFFERTY,
School of History Archives,
UCD,
Belfield, Dublin 4.
Sir, – Unlike Michael McCarthy TD (July 27th), I found Breda O’Brien’s views (Opinion & Analysis, July 23rd) on the Kenny-Vatican affair to be fair and balanced and to uphold an old but good motto, “the truth in the news”. Her article was objective, not objectionable. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – Before he made his speech, I do hope Enda Kenny checked to make sure the Vatican isn’t one of our senior bondholders. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – Paddy Barry suggests (July 27th) “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”.
While disagreeing with his descriptions of their utterances, I think the firm and unequivocal statements from both the Taoiseach and Tánaiste were, if anything, long overdue.
Mr Barry may long for the “careful, measured language of the experienced career civil servants in Merrion Street”, but it is obvious to the dogs in the street that the traditional obsequious subservience meted out by former taoisigh to Rome and its representatives achieved nothing for the victims of abuse in our country. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – The Taoiseach’s speech in taking the moral high ground against the Vatican lacks credibility given the appalling record of the State over the years in the area of child protection.
The State, let us not forget, dumped unwanted children into the care of the religious for economic expediency. Children will always be vulnerable by their nature and lack of legal independence. Their care and protection should not be left solely to the State or the religious.
Is the current record of the HSE of such high standing that we could send a representative of our Government to the Vatican to chastise them? For generations we condoned as parents and in the wider community the practice of physical abuse in our schools as a disciplinary measure, and we wonder why children ended up being abused?
The Vatican and the Irish Catholic Church have betrayed Christian values but they did not travel that dark journey alone. We delegated our consciences and gave them unquestioned authority and respect down through the generations because they educated body and soul. The Catholic church was our friend against the oppressor and our comforter in our darkest days. We are now left satisfied with our Taoiseach for castigating the Vatican when its moral authority is at its weakest. The victims are the brave – and that label should not be stolen from them and placed on any politician speaking from an ivory tower.
Only when our Government has enacted laws, instead of guidelines, to protect the rights of all our children should we be truly satisfied. – Yours, etc,