TRUST and an inability to trust – anyone – ever again is something that sex abuse and particularly child sex abuse victims speak of regularly.
For women that have never disclosed to anyone a childhood where they were raped and sexually assaulted repeatedly, the decision to eventually face head on this appalling wrongdoing, and indeed their abuser, is like volunteering to turn around and walk back into that the eye of that childhood nightmare.
Having to disclose intimate details of abuse to the gardaí and HSE is horrendous, but the thought of trusting another man in a collar is often a bridge too far to cross for clerical abuse victims, especially in light of the numerous reports in recent years highlighting a "systematic cover up" by the global Catholic Church.
Both of the women who disclosed their abuse in Cloyne to Fr Bill Bermingham last year said that they had to be coaxed repeatedly by therapists who told them that this was a "priest who could be trusted" and that the diocese had been "cleaned up" over the past 18 months. They chose to trust the therapists and the ‘new Church’ but how wrong they were.
In the words of the second woman: "I did not wanted to discuss my abuse with a priest but I was persuaded to do this as part the process. I was told that this man could be trusted but I was screwed over."
Much attention is now being paid to the Church’s Safeguarding Children guidelines which Fr Bermingham last week used to justify his decision to give full details of a woman’s disclosure to the priest who had abused her – before gardaí had ever got a chance to speak to him.
However, while these guidelines urgently need to be overhauled and all holes plugged so this can never happen again, the case raises issues over and beyond his interpretation of church guidelines.
It’s about the Church’s ongoing moral cloudiness post-Ryan and Murphy report, when it comes to doing what is right and fair by people who have the courage to report their abuse.
It is about them finally realising that state criminal law takes precedence over church guidelines, canon law and protecting your own.
It’s about priests not expecting other priests should be treated differently to anyone else accused of such a heinous crime – to them not being briefed before a garda interview.
For further evidence of their desire to be treated different, look no further than the Pope’s outrage at the police raids on church office in Belgium following a flood of abuse complaints.
Questions now linger about how much the Church has really ‘cleaned up’ its act. Questions also hover about the state’s role in monitoring the Church and its ongoing commitment to child protection.
Why is it that the Church’s child protection delegates are allowed to act as case investigators when no other civil organisation can?
And why can these delegates obtain information that should only be given to gardaí?
This does not happen in schools, the GAA or the FAI or any such organisation.
To the women in this case, and Fr Bermingham may state otherwise, his primary concern was to protect a fellow priest.
As far as the victims are concerned, his gut response was to arm the perpetrator with knowledge without giving due concern to how his actions could undermine their criminal cases and shatter their trust.
SIC: IE