ANALYSIS:SOME OF the words used by Pope Benedict XVI yesterday on clerical child sex abuse in the Irish church have a familiar ring: "outrage", "betrayal", "shame", "deeply disturbed", "distressed", "profound regret", "heinous crimes", "traumatic events" and "shameful events".
On October 28th, 2006, when Ireland’s Catholic bishops visited Rome, he used a similar vocabulary. Referring to the “many heart-rending cases of sexual abuse of minors” by priests in Ireland, he said “the wounds caused by such acts run deep, and it is an urgent task to rebuild confidence and trust where these have been damaged”.
He told them “it is important to establish the truth of what happened in the past, to take whatever steps are necessary to prevent it from occurring again, to ensure that the principles of justice are fully respected and, above all, to bring healing to the victims”.
Meanwhile, just the previous month, September 2006, the Murphy commission had written to the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, of which Pope Benedict had been head until April 2005, seeking information supplied to it from Ireland about incidents of clerical child sex abuse in the Dublin archdiocese. It did not respond to the commission.
However, there are indications that yesterday’s statement might be followed by more action. Probably the most significant line is: “The Holy Father intends to address a pastoral letter to the faithful of Ireland in which he will clearly indicate the initiatives that are to be taken in response to the situation.”
Such pastoral letters to a local church are rare in Vatican affairs and apply usually to emergency situations.
As significant in yesterday’s statement was the preceding line: “The Holy See takes very seriously the central issues raised by the report, including questions concerning the governance of local church leaders with ultimate responsibility for the pastoral care of children.”
Combined, both indicate that the Vatican is contemplating reorganisation of the Irish church.
What the Murphy report said about church governance in Dublin is worth recalling. Under the heading “Management of the Archdiocese”, it pointed out that “as an organisation operating within society, it seems to the commission that the church ought to have some regard to secular requirements in its choice of leader. The archbishop is the manager of the archdiocese as well, of course, as being its spiritual leader . . . Appointments to positions as archbishops and bishops seem to have been made primarily on the basis of doctrinal orthodoxy. Management ability does not seem to have been a relevant criterion.”
But probably the most damning conclusion arrived at by the commission was that “for most of the time covered by the commission’s remit, there was nothing resembling a management structure in the archdiocese”.
It found “there was no clear job description for the auxiliary bishops” who “appeared to have had a role akin to that of deputy chief executives but they did not have the clarity of responsibility or power that such a position would normally entail”.
Each auxiliary bishop “seems to have interpreted his role in his own way” and “he did not always report significant information to the archbishop”.
It was a recipe for the disaster that occurred in Dublin and which allowed for, as the report stated, “a disturbing failure to accept responsibility on the part of some of the bishops who gave evidence. There was also a tendency to blame the archbishop and/or the chancellor.”
Just as the auxiliary bishops failed to accept responsibility before the commission they continue to do so in refusing to resign.
Where reorganisation is concerned it is most likely that the Vatican will be looking at the Irish church in general and not just in Dublin. That can only be welcomed and the sooner the better.
