My earlier posting in relation to the issue fo the difference of opinion in relation to the handling of the files in relation to the Archdiocese (AD) of Dublin has certainly prompted a lot of replies and comments which I truly welcome.I believe that some points need to be clarified in relation to all of this and I ask you to be patient with me as I do so....
1. Personally, I have somewhat of a legal background and therefore do understand the position of Cardinal Emeritus CONNELL in relation to seeking the protection of certain documentation.
2. As much as the RC Church holds to the importance of the Confessional Seal so too must the legal privilege of client-counsel also be treated and moreso if so indicated on a profound basis by those involved seeking such client-counsel confidentiality.
3. However, what makes me certainly withhold any sense of empathy at this stage towards the position of the Cardinal is the fact that he would have known for a number of years (certainly at least a decade and a half according to my legal insiders) that this was going to be an issue at any time but the Cardinal has held out until now.
4. Bearing number 3 in mind, then the question needs to be asked: at what point was Cardinal Emeritus CONNELL lying to the public and especially to the victims when he said he would co-operate fully with the Commission of Investigation into Child Sexual Abuse in the Dublin Archdiocese (CICSADA) - was it when he first made such a committment at the announcement of the appointment of his successor Archbishop (AB) Diarmuid MARTIN or was it in Rome in 2006 when he stated he would rather go to jail than hand over the 5,000 files?
That is a question the Cardinal will need to reflect on, and very carefully so, especially as he is now to prepare himself for the Court hearing on Monday next in the High Court!!!
5. Like all others, I have watched, read and listened to the medii not just in Ireland but from abroad also in relation to this matter, and would like to think that I am beyond being influenced by the medii which I think this site has proven since its inception over 14 months ago. I tend to put not both sides of a situation up here but rather every possible side there can be to a situation, and this one is no exception to that.
This story has drawn pro- and anti- Cardinal empathisers and also as many again of those disillusioned, hurt, disbelieving, angry and stunned to say the least by the whole situation.
6. AB MARTIN has received what could be called positive press in relation to his attempts to handle this sideshow to the CICSADA, but I would be the first to accept that he has also made decisions within the AD of Dublin which have not been favourable to him.
Yes, he has also upset clergy, been beligerent towards them, uncomprimising in many ways and considered to be way out of touch with his clergy (and I as a priest who would not have much kudos towards him, believe me I am using words in a very restrained manner!!) and many priests within the AD would love to see him Mistral it back to the Vatican for himself and let Auxiliary Bishop WALSH take charge.
7. AB MARTIN is indeed media savvy and will attempt to make sure he comes out of this smelling of roses, but he must deal with the manure in the interim and as a diplomat, perhaps he is best placed to do so right now.
However, both as a person and a priest, I think he would be better off moving back to the Apostolic Palace after this debacle as his credibility in all of this will have taken one hell of a nosedive. As soon as this is back on track, get him on the next Mistral flight back to the Palace on the Tiber and give the keys of Kevin to WALSH.
8. Now that the Cardinal Emeritus and the AB are both on the same turf up there in the Holy Land, maybe they can have a chat before Monday and get this resolved to the satisfaction of all concerned.
Personally, my suggestion would be as follows;
1. the members of CICSADA, representatives of the victims, Cardinal Emeritus CONNELL, AB MARTIN and other vested interests sit down and go through the 5,000 files and discuss their relevance or otherwise to the CICSADA investigation;
2. if there are documents which are relevant, contact should be made with those named therein and their views sought and respected as to whether they wish to have their files / documentation etc included or precluded from the investigation;
3. those who wish to be included give their written and sworn consent to the CICSADA only to have such information included as part of their investigation and it is the wishes of the victims which must be paramount over those of others;
4. those who wish to have information precluded would also give sworn verbal and written testament withholding their consent and again such would have to be paramount over the wishes of others;
5. if a person is now deceased or incapacitated to such an extent as not to be in aposition to either consent or otherwise, then their next-of-kin or legal representative should decide. If this is not possible, then a Judge should decide and issue an order accordingly.
By all parties consenting to this form of mediation, I believe that a formal agreement could be reached and this whole sorry mess could be cleaned up and let the healing process so richly owed and deserved by many can begin and/or continue.
WE CAN BUT PRAY, BUT PRAY WE MUST