THE CHRISTIAN Brothers have described its response to the abuse issue as “shamefully inadequate and hurtful” after it emerged that the order was denying allegations of abuse up to five days before the publication of the report of the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse. Survivors of institutional abuse said it was “not surprising” that the order was denying abuse so recently.
Labour’s health spokeswoman Jan O’Sullivan said it “absolutely beggars belief” that the Christian Brothers could still have been taking this stance in May. “I find it just incredible,” she said. “Before the Ryan report, we had the Commission hearings and the Redress Board so it’s quite incredible that they would still be denying abuse with the information available to them.”
One in Four, which works with victims of abuse, said it was not surprised at the news as its clients had repeatedly been met with “suspicion and resistance” when they spoke about the abuse they endured.
Fine Gael spokesman on children Alan Shatter said the Christian Brothers’ response was regrettable but not surprising as it depicted the general approach taken by the order.
“It’s the reason why many people don’t regard the apologies that were issued by the Christian Brothers in the days following the Ryan Commission as necessarily reflecting their true position,” Mr Shatter said.
“Many people have doubted the sincerity of the apologies given because the Christian Brothers have known for many years the true events and didn’t need to read the Ryan report,” he said.
“I would hope that, in the further cases that come before the Redress Board, a different approach will be adopted. Public assurances should be given by Christian Brothers that they will adopt a different approach.”
The Irish Times reported yesterday that letters from the religious order to the Residential Institutions Redress Board rejected any allegations of systemic abuse and said the only form of corporal punishment allowed was “moderate slapping” on the palms of hands.
In a statement from the Christian Brothers, its communications director Brother Edmund Garvey said the letters to the Redress Board predated the publication of the Ryan report “which highlighted the shocking nature and extent of abuse that occurred”.
He continued: “The Brothers’ subsequent apologies reflected their shame that as recently as five days prior to publication of the report their responses were still shamefully inadequate and hurtful.
“Since publication of the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into Child Abuse, the congregation has accepted its culpability as well as recognising its moral obligation to former residents and to present and future generations of children.”
Former industrial school resident Mannix Flynn said: “They still are not accepting any liability or taking any responsibility whatsoever.” He added that as long as the indemnity deal was in place, the survivors of abuse would never get justice.
“It would appear to me that all they are interested in is their own self protection and that will be the same into the future until lawful authorities of the court and this jurisdiction deliver to the people,” he said.
“I’m appealing to society not to take this. This thing is going to engulf people and they need to have a real strong robust challenge to this. Otherwise the world will look and think ‘they just rolled over and accepted it”.
He said the “hullabaloo” over the Ryan report would die down “and in five weeks’ time the Christian Brothers will be saying they did nothing wrong”.
Former industrial school resident Oliver Burke said he believed the Christian Brothers had only apologised after the Ryan report because of the strength of public and church opinion. “That’s why they changed their tune.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Disclaimer
No responsibility or liability shall attach itself to us or to the blogspot ‘Clerical Whispers’ for any or all of the articles placed here.
The placing of an article hereupon does not necessarily imply that we agree or accept the contents of the article as being necessarily factual in theology, dogma or otherwise.
Source (IT)
SV (3)