Sir, – The concluding words of the Vatican’s Response to the Cloyne report and the Government’s views in its regard are worth noting. After recalling the fact that the Holy See has always respected the sovereignty of the Irish State, the statement affirms that “the Holy See wishes to engage in constructive dialogue and co-operation with the Irish Government so that all institutions, whether public or private, religious or secular, may work together to ensure that the Church and, indeed, society in general will always be safe for children and young people.”
This, it seems to me, is an appeal to the Irish Government to adopt a more constructive attitude towards the Catholic Church for the sake of the good of children. The response stresses that any such dialogue should be “on the basis of mutual respect”.
The response admits that the Taoiseach’s speech in the Dáil did echo “depth of public anger and frustration at the findings of the Cloyne report”. It went on to express the Holy See’s “significant reservations about some elements of the speech”. These serious reservations are dealt with calmly but firmly, in particular the accusation that the Holy See attempted to frustrate a Government inquiry. Equally firmly but respectfully, the response rejected the motion passed in both Dáil and Seanad deploring “the Vatican’s intervention which contributed to the undermining of the child protection framework documents of the Irish State and the Irish bishops”. There is no evidence whatsoever that the Vatican undermined the Irish State’s own framework guidelines (still pending legislation).
To describe the letter from the then-papal nuncio to the Irish bishops with regard to the standing of their “Framework document” as an “intervention” is, to put it mildly, an exaggeration. The Holy See has every right to state its position on documents submitted to it by various bishops’ conferences for comment. (How those responsible for Cloyne interpreted it, is, tragically, something else.) The Taoiseach could be accused of intervening in the inner life of the church by his speech in the Dáil, but the Vatican response refrained from doing so.
That is now history. The Holy See’s response should be seen as an effort to restore proper relations with the Irish Government based on mutual respect and on a genuine attempt to get to the truth of the matter – for the sake of making both Church and society in general a safer place for children and young people. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – There is little doubting Vatican arrogance, the Taoiseach’s grandstanding, and previous government complicity in the concealment of clerical abuse.
But the plain people of Ireland were every bit as responsible.
Nudge-nudge, wink-wink, most people at that time had heard rumours of unsavoury happenings in the Magdalene homes, the orphanages and industrial schools. But they closed their minds and hearts and put on their best for Sunday Mass.
You challenged such indifference and hypocrisy at your peril. I had a bottle smashed over my head for doing so as late as 1960.
I have more sympathy for the clerical abusers, many of whom were forced into celibate orders by ambitious religious mothers, than I have for the hypocrites who stood by.
Being Catholic most certainly did not mean being Christian.
Everyone here was complicit. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – In your Editorial (“Keeping an eye on the Holy See”, September 7th) you support the recent article by Prof Dermot Keogh when you say “ . . . we may still need to maintain our presence in Rome”.
In essence, all you offer in support of this viewpoint is an acknowledgment that the faith of most of the population is articulated by Rome’s representatives. No mention of whether this faith is an active one, or merely a births, deaths and marriages facilitation service.
If, as the McCarthy report recommends, 21 of our foreign missions ought to be eliminated, then surely the one which is least productive, the one which generates no commercial benefit and little, if any, spiritual benefit ought to top the list. Cutting a diplomatic mission is not usually a one-sided thing. If we cut out ties to X-land then we would normally see the X-land embassy here close – to the detriment of those who trade with it; those of our citizens who wish to travel to X-land; and any citizens of X-land living here. As the Holy See has a “representative” in every Roman Catholic parish in the country, and in almost all our schools, hospitals and other institutions, we would not be as “out-of-touch” with Rome as we would be with the capital of X-land.
Who really benefits, and how, from our diplomatic relations with the Vatican? The Pope, should he so wish, could send a pastoral letter to Ireland and require it to be read at all the Masses countrywide on a given day – we don’t have a reciprocal arrangement! As I see it, the only benefit accruing from our relations is to give the Vatican access to our legislators – access no other faith has. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – Are you also thinking of changing your name to The Skibereen Eagle (Editorial, “Keeping an eye on the Holy See”, September 7th)? – Yours, etc,