For decades the great majority of people took their ethics from the
church.
We never developed a civic ethic that could replace that system
when the inevitable crisis arrived
ENDA Kenny calls the Vatican's
handling of clerical sex abuse scandals "disgraceful".
Eamon Gilmore
meets the Papal Nuncio and demands an explanation from the Vatican of
why the Catholic Church's guidelines on the subject were ignored and
allegations of abuse went unreported.
Not all that long ago, Irish politicians feared a "belt of a crozier". Much has changed, and for the better.
And
that is the true significance of the Cloyne Report. Not the sadly
familiar details of the crimes and cover-ups.
Not even the breathtaking
arrogance and flagrant disregard of the law. The greatest change is in
the political response.
That change has been in train for many
years. As far back as October 2002, Michael McDowell famously equated
the Catholic Church's canon law with the rules of a golf club.
Earlier,
the church had issued guidelines that provided for mandatory reporting
of alleged sexual abuse of minors to the civil authorities.
Any
argument about the supposed primacy of canon law over civil law is over.
But guidelines can be ignored or circumvented, and evidently more than
one Irish diocese has been governed by people who think they can make up
their own rules.
They have thereby risked the ultimate threat to their shaky authority: an outright church-State confrontation.
In
the past, such an outcome to friction between church and State has
always been avoided, by compromise or obfuscation or a climbdown by
politicians who thought the crozier more powerful than the Dail.
Not
this time.
The politicians have responded to the Cloyne Report with an
unequivocal challenge that, as they clearly believe, they are certain to
win.
In some ways, this is a regrettable moment in our history.
For centuries, the great majority of the Irish people took their ethics
from the church. We never developed a civic ethic that could replace
that system when the inevitable crisis arrived.
The decline -- crash
might be a better word -- of the church's authority has left us
rudderless.
Our situation is also an indictment of most bishops'
attitude to reform.
All institutions require constant reform, and those
who fail to recognise that risk at best stagnation, at worst having
their wisest words as much ignored as their most foolish.
But
reform is, after all, an internal matter. Obedience to the law of the
land is the duty and concern of everyone.
The politicians have rightly
decided that the law must not only be obeyed but strengthened.
Instead
of breast-beating and lamentation, we are to have two new pieces of
legislation designed to protect minors, and instead of polite diplomatic
words we have heard outright criticism of the Vatican itself.
That is greatly to the credit of the Government.
It is also to the credit of the Fianna Fail party.
In
recent times, Fianna Fail effectively replaced Fine Gael as the
"Catholic" party.
Lately, it has come under pressure from right-wing
Catholic apologists and organisations to assert the "conservative" view
on what are coyly called social issues.
But in the present case, it has
shown good sense by standing firm.
It remains to be seen how all
the main parties handle the outstanding issues of contention between
church and State.
These may be summed up, in ascending order of
complexity, as follows: same-sex marriage, compensation for victims of
institutional abuse, primary education and abortion.
The first is
not really an issue, and certainly should not be an issue.
Same-sex
couples in civil partnerships already have all the rights of married
couples.
Only an insignificant minority feel aggrieved that these
partnerships are not described as marriages. We should leave well enough
alone.
As to the payment of the compensation, the last government
made a very bad deal with the religious orders involved.
Most people
would agree that the liability should be shared 50-50.
But the orders
fear that such an arrangement could bankrupt many of them.
They have
little cash, and the value of buildings and land has plummeted.
However,
in case anyone hasn't noticed, the State has no money at all.
On
primary education, Ruairi Quinn has proposed that the State should take
over the management of 50pc of the schools.
The church proposes
retaining control of 90pc.
This does not strike me as a viable
proposition.
The Education Minister's proposal is more realistic.
But abortion is the really tricky question.
We
have had three referendums on the issue of overturning the Supreme
Court judgment in the "X" case, that a threat of suicide constitutes a
danger to the life of a pregnant woman.
All three attempts have failed.
We don't want yet another.
Instead, we should have legislation to
determine the circumstances in which a termination of pregnancy may
legally take place.
But let us leave aside for the moment the
direct conflict between those who oppose abortion in any circumstances
and those who approve of it in some circumstances.
What circumstances?
And on the reasonable assumption that most of us would answer "very
restricted", can there be credible guarantees that they would remain
restricted and that the actual regime would not amount to "abortion on
demand"?
This argument is not suitable for an impassioned, confrontational campaign, such as we have known in the past.
I
suggest that the Government should publish a paper setting out the
options as coolly and objectively as possible, and follow it up with a
series of consultations.
There is plenty of time.
There has
already been plenty of time -- too much -- for the subject I haven't
mentioned.
Yet in the years since it arrived on the agenda, we have
never seen the text of the referendum on children's rights or heard any
explanation of what has delayed it.
This is something I don't
understand.
Are there pressure groups, or legal experts, who think that
asserting children's rights would undermine "the traditional family"?
If
so, let them tell us.
And while they are about it, let them tell
us what measures they think we need to support an institution of which
everybody approves but which has been shaken to its roots by our
financial disasters and by the shredding of the church's authority.
I
would be very happy to see the bishops taking part in a debate like
that.
If they do, I promise to listen.
But if they want a mass audience,
they will have to speak with clarity and objectivity.
And humility.
Maybe Cloyne, and the shock of the reaction to it, will have given them a little lesson in this rarest of virtues.