Enda Kenny has let rip on the Vatican.

magicbastarder

what is the state's position on visits of heads of state who were elected in circumstances which are not regarded as democratic by any normal definition of the democratic process?

who the fug

magicbastarder wrote: »

what is the state's position on visits of heads of state who were elected in circumstances which are not regarded as democratic by any normal definition of the democratic process?

What like China, UK , GW Bush/ JFK in the USA

goingpostal

magicbastarder wrote: »

did i read somewhere that the vatican being treated as a state in the UN violates the UN's own rules?
it was based on the rule that the UN require a state to have a 'permanent' population to be considered a state, and one where there are no births and people move there at a certain age does not meet these requirements.

Yes. You are spot on. The Vatican's claim to statehood derives from a murky deal they did with the fascist dictator of Italy, Benito Mussolini, in 1929 which produced the Lateran Treaty. The Vatican meets none of the requirements for being considered a real state. Geoffrey Robinson wrote an excellent book last year, called The Case of The Pope, which explains the historical context of the Vatican's ridiculous claim to statehood, and how they have exploited the trappings of statehood relentlessly, in their attempts to cover up systematic child-rape by priests and to avoid handing their priests over to the police in the jurisdiction in which the crimes were committed. It is a superb book.

MrPudding

magicbastarder wrote: »

did i read somewhere that the vatican being treated as a state in the UN violates the UN's own rules?
it was based on the rule that the UN require a state to have a 'permanent' population to be considered a state, and one where there are no births and people move there at a certain age does not meet these requirements.

The vatican or holy see fail on several points to satisfy the internationally recognised requirements for being a state. I can't remember them all off hand, but I have them in a book. Off the top of my head here are a couple:

1) Utilities. They don't have any.
2) Legal due process. They have cannon law, but if a person picks someone else's pocket in St Pauls Cathedral they are arrested by Italian police and are prosecuted in an Italian court.
2) Most of the "holy see" is housed in Rome not in vatican city, so I recall there are issues with population( I am a bit hazy on this one).

There are a few other things, but I would need to read up on them again. From what I recall the statehood is based on the Lateran Treaty, this is potentially questionable from a legal perspective and definitely questionable from a moral perspective; but them this particular despicable organisation is no stranger to questionable moral activity.

MrP

Galvasean

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

An "unprecedented attack"?! He didn't fly a plane into a church. He criticised it, sternly and well.

Bah, damn RTÉ.

I wouldn't read too much into the word 'attack' being used in news media. It's just a better headline grabber than the word 'critique'.

MrPudding

goingpostal wrote: »

Yes. You are spot on. The Vatican's claim to statehood derives from a murky deal they did with the fascist dictator of Italy, Benito Mussolini, in 1929 which produced the Lateran Treaty. The Vatican meets none of the requirements for being considered a real state. Geoffrey Robinson wrote an excellent book last year, called The Case of The Pope, which explains the historical context of the Vatican's ridiculous claim to statehood, and how they have exploited the trappings of statehood relentlessly, in their attempts to cover up systematic child-rape by priests and to avoid handing their priests over to the police in the jurisdiction in which the crimes were committed. It is a superb book.

An excellent book.

MrP

The Mad Hatter

Galvasean wrote: »

I wouldn't read too much into the word 'attack' being used in news media. It's just a better headline grabber than the word 'critique'.

Maybe, but what about "Kenny Condemns Vatican"? The Mail also called it an attack, but I (goodness knows why) expect more from the national broadcaster than from that execrable rag. The Times, for comparison, just led with a paraphrase: "This is a republic, not the Vatican."

Undergod

I'm equally guilty here, but it was funny to see this in the sidebar of whatdocatholicsreallybelieve.blogspot.com

thegreengoblin

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

It'd be worth rewriting this and sending it to the national papers.

My sentiments exactly. Give it to them straight.

Bristolian

While I agree with much that has been said here about reducing the role of religious in the management of schools and repealing the Latern Treaty so that the Church will be forced to rely on the convictions of it's faith rather than hide behind international law, I can't but think that they are been used as a scapegoat by politicians, media and many members of the general public.

It is important to remember that abuse is rife in society and that there is significantly less chance of been abused by priests then by the members of any other profession. Of course priests shouldn't do it at all but by focusing all our anger on the church we forget that many more children are at risk because of the neglect of state institutions and the dysfunction within families.

Over the past ten years hardly anyone has been abused by church personnel as it has got it's child safeguarding act together yet many hundreds of children are at risk and some of even died under the so called care of state bodies.

robindch

Bristolian wrote: »

[...] there is significantly less chance of been abused by priests then by the members of any other profession. [...]

This point comes up here from time to time -- according to figures provided by the church itself, it seems that priests are between 40 and 80 times more likely than members of the public to either (a) be a convicted child-abuser or (b) have credible allegations made against him.

Hivemind187

Surreal stuff. Does he always deliver like that or was he imitating the church pulpit style for ironic effect?

Here's hoping he backs those words up with action.

magicbastarder

Bristolian wrote: »

there is significantly less chance of been abused by priests then by the members of any other profession.

there is signigficantly less chance of me being killed by a rabid crocodile than by falling off a cliff. does this absolve rabid crocodiles of responsibility?

Bristolian

magicbastarder wrote: »

there is signigficantly less chance of me being killed by a rabid crocodile than by falling off a cliff. does this absolve rabid crocodiles of responsibility?

No it doesn't - not at all. The point I am making is that it is convenient for the state, media and the general public to scapegoat the church while the 97% of abuse that is inflicted by people outside of the church is ignored or buried.

The poster who said that a person is 40 to 80 times more likely to be abused by a priest than by someone from a different profession is completely and utterly wrong. All statistics from within the church and from secular sources will point to the exact opposite.

There may have been a time prior to the early 1970's when there were large numbers of dubious religious running schools, orphanages, borstals and hospitals and as such there was an elevated risk of being abused by them. This has changed. Despite what is often reported in our very lazy and deeply biased media, the child safeguarding regulations in the church are now more stringent than in any other organisation. Mandatory and instant reporting of all allegations is now the norm and has been over the past 10 years.

robindch

Bristolian wrote: »

The poster who said that their is someone is 40 to 80 times more likely to be abused by a priest than by someone from a different profession is completely and utterly wrong. All statistics from within the church and from secular sources will point to the exact opposite.

The stats produced by the Dublin archdiocese indicate that over the last 70 years, 7% of priests were abusers within the terms I described above. The Cloyne report indicated that 8% of priests were abusers in the same terms.

Much as you might dislike it, and find the figure distasteful, this is around 70-80 times the rate of the general population.

oldrnwisr

OK, I think it's time to get off my ass and stop fence-sitting.

Bristolian wrote: »

... while the 97% of abuse that is inflicted by people outside of the church is ignored or buried.

Bristolian wrote: »

The poster who said that a person is 40 to 80 times more likely to be abused by a priest than by someone from a different profession is completely and utterly wrong. All statistics from within the church and from secular sources will point to the exact opposite.

Would you be so good as to actually provide evidence to back up your claims. We would all love to see these statistics.

The fact of the matter is that making any comparisons between abusive priests and the population at large is exceedingly difficult. The main reason is that there is no consensus in the medical community as to the prevalence of paedophilia in the general population. Some sources have estimated it to be as low as 3.8% and as high as 9% (although this requires taking into consideration potential offenders). Without solid evidence for the general population it is at best unwise and at worst deliberately disingenuous to make claims about how priests compare.

Pedophilia, Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, Vol. 5, pp. 391-407

Ahlers, C. J., Schaefer, G. A., Mundt, I. A., Roll, S., Englert, H., Willich, S. N. and Beier, K. M. , How Unusual are the Contents of Paraphilias? Paraphilia-Associated Sexual Arousal Patterns in a Community-Based Sample of Men. The Journal of Sexual Medicine.

Seto MC (2004). "Pedophilia and sexual offenses against children". Annu Rev Sex Res 15: 321–61.

What we can say we know is the percentage of priests who have had allegations of child sexual abuse made against them.

The John Jay Report (2004) found 6700 allegations made against 4392 priests or 4% of all priests.

The Causes and Context of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests in the United States, 1950-2010

As Robin has already pointed out the figures outlined in both the Ryan and Cloyne reports have shown much higher percentages. However, there is no evidence to suggest that it is outside the rates in the general population.

There are, however, two important points to be made here.

The first is that the scandal is not that some priests were paedophiles. The scandal is that there was a systematic and organised attempt by the church in this country to subvert our justice system and protect known criminals, a cover-up which was maintained right up to the present.

Secondly, the priests and bishops of the country who are ostensibly the moral champions of society and the exemplars of human behaviour are no different to the general population when it comes to child abuse. I think Stephen Fry says it best:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGFS_hkHfCc

Bristolian wrote: »

Mandatory and instant reporting of all allegations is now the norm and has been over the past 10 years.

Not according to the Cloyne report, or have you not read it?

Implementing the Framework Document in the Diocese of Cloyne
1.21 Contrary to repeated assertions on its part, the Diocese of Cloyne did
not implement the procedures set out in the Church protocols for dealing with
allegations of child sexual abuse. The main failures were:
(a) The failure to report all complaints to the Gardaí;
(b) The failure to report any complaints to the health authorities between
1996 and 2008;
(c) The failure to appoint support people;
(d) The failure to operate an independent advisory panel.

(a) Reporting to the Gardaí
1.22 The greatest failure by the Diocese of Cloyne was its failure to report
all complaints to the Gardaí. Between 1996 and 2005, there were 15
complaints which very clearly should have been reported by the diocese to
the Gardaí. This figure of 15 does not include concerns and does not include 7 cases where the allegations were already known to the Gardaí (although some of these also ought to have been reported). Of these 15, nine were not reported. The most serious lapse was the failure to report the two cases in which the alleged victims were minors at the time the complaint was made.
One of the most unusual and unacceptable aspects of the diocese reporting to the Gardaí was the reporting by Monsignor O’Callaghan of the complainant’s name but not the perpetrator’s name in the Fr Caden case (see Chapter 21). The attempt by Monsignor O’Callaghan to have a particular garda deal with this case was correctly disregarded by the garda
superintendent.

Here is a link so you can refresh your memory.

Cloyne Report

Bristolian wrote: »

Despite what is often reported in our very lazy and deeply biased media, the child safeguarding regulations in the church are now more stringent than in any other organisation.

So what? The main finding of the Cloyne report was that the Church's own framework for reporting child abuse was not adhered to in the 13 years after its introduction. What good are stringent child safeguarding regulations if the bishops and priests investigating the abuse have been given a free hand by the Vatican to ignore them?

robindch

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Without solid evidence for the general population it is at best unwise and at worst deliberately disingenuous to make claims about how priests compare.

I'm basing my conclusion on what I hope is the reasonable assumption that conviction rates are the same or very similar for priests and non-priests.

The Irish Catholic reported a few years ago that 4% of convicted child abuses were ordained priests, but from a base of 0.1% of the population -- hence the 40 times figure. Add in the priests against whom credible allegations have been made (but not convicted), and you can probably double that amount.

If, say, 4% of the Irish male population were imprisoned for child abuse then we would expect there'd be around 0.04*2,000,000 = 80,000 convicted male child abusers. Which is way out of whack with the current prison population of around 3,000. One can work forwards from that number to try to establish a rate from the other perspective and I think it will, at least, be in the same general order of magnitude.

From that, I think it's fairly safe to conclude, within the confidence from the numbers available, that abuse amongst priests is far, far higher than it is in the wider population.

oldrnwisr

robindch wrote: »

I'm basing my conclusion on what I hope is the reasonable assumption that conviction rates are the same or very similar for priests and non-priests.

The Irish Catholic reported a few years ago that 4% of convicted child abuses were ordained priests, but from a base of 0.1% of the population -- hence the 40 times figure. Add in the priests against whom credible allegations have been made (but not convicted), and you can probably double that amount.

If, say, 4% of the Irish male population were imprisoned for child abuse then we would expect there'd be around 0.04*2,000,000 = 80,000 convicted male child abusers. Which is way out of whack with the current prison population of around 3,000. One can work forwards from that number to try to establish a rate from the other perspective and I think it will, at least, be in the same general order of magnitude.

From that, I think it's fairly safe to conclude, within the confidence from the numbers available, that abuse amongst priests is far, far higher than it is in the wider population.

Thanks for that, Robin, I hadn't considered analysing the problem from that perspective.

BTW, I don't know if this is the first one but this is one of the articles from the Irish Catholic that I've found to back up your analysis:

Fixing the Church

Morbert

Hmm, I'm confused about the claim that someone is 40 to 80 times more likely to be abused by a priest.

Consider the table below.


These numbers are presumably fairly typical. Priests don't seem to stand out, as the proportion of all abusers seems to reflect the proportion of all authority figures.

robindch

oldrnwisr wrote: »

I don't know if this is the first one but this is one of the articles from the Irish Catholic that I've found to back up your analysis:

Looks like it. I saw the 4% first on an "Irish Catholic" headline a few years back which read, AFAIR, "Only 4% of Convicted Child Abusers are Priests!". Stats, and the interpretation thereof, is not the IC's strong point.

I haven't contacted the prisons service to see if this figure is true, but I'm assuming it's at least plausible since it correlates with the general scale of the problem as documented in other sources.

Penn

Morbert wrote: »

Hmm, I'm confused about the claim that someone is 40 to 80 times more likely to be abused by a priest.

Consider the table below.


These numbers are presumably fairly typical. Priests don't seem to stand out, as the proportion of all abusers seems to reflect the proportion of all authority figures.

What robin is saying and what that table is saying aren't mutually exclusive.

Robin is saying (and he's free to correct me if I'm wrong) that statistically, reports would indicate that a higher percentage of priests abuse children than normal everyday folk of other occupations.

But that doesn't mean that a higher percentage of children were abused by priests than by other members of society.

Example (These numbers are false and merely for demonstrative purposes):
110 people. 100 are average Joe Soaps. 10 are Priests.
Out of the 100 Joe Soaps, 10 abuse children. So 10% of them abuse children.
Out of the 10 priests, 2 abuse children. So 20% of them abuse children.

The Joe Soaps abused 5x as many children. But a higher percentage of the priests abused children.

Again, just an example that both cases are right, just from a different viewpoint.

robindch

Morbert wrote: »

Consider the table below.

That report, btw, coming from the 2002 "SAVI report: sexual abuse and violence in Ireland":

http://epubs.rcsi.ie/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1009&context=psycholrep

Haven't read the report, but I'm puzzled by the distinction between "Religious minister" and "Teacher (religious)" -- is that referring to priests + non-priestly teachers of religion, or something else? And what about priests who teach religion? First group or second?

Either way, and if I'm reading it aright, (a) around one-third of male sexual abusers who hold positions of authority are religious authority figures (much the largest group), while around six percent (not four) of abusers overall are religious authority figures.

oldrnwisr

robindch wrote: »

That report, btw, coming from the 2002 "SAVI report: sexual abuse and violence in Ireland":

http://epubs.rcsi.ie/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1009&context=psycholrep

Haven't read the report, but I'm puzzled by the distinction between "Religious minister" and "Teacher (religious)" -- is that referring to priests + non-priestly teachers of religion, or something else? And what about priests who teach religion? First group or second?

Either way, and if I'm reading it aright, (a) around one-third of male sexual abusers who hold positions of authority are religious authority figures (much the largest group), while around six percent (not four) of abusers overall are religious authority figures.

I was puzzled by that distinction too so I looked a little deeper and the report notes:

Combining religious ministers and religious teachers, they constituted the largest single category of authority figures as abusers of boys; 5.8% of all boys sexually abused were abused by clergy or religious. A smaller proportion (1.4 per cent) of girls abused were abused by clergy or religious

robindch

oldrnwisr wrote: »

5.8% of all boys sexually abused were abused by clergy or religious. A smaller proportion (1.4 per cent) of girls abused were abused by clergy or religious

Interesting, if desperately sad, to note that the American conference of catholic bishops released a report a few years back (with a much larger data set) which indicated that there was a three-to-one (AFAIR) preference amongst abuser-priest for boys over girls.

Why is that? There's a lot of similar trends emerging and, given that, I'm inclined to think that there are rational, evidence-based reasons for the similarity.

goingpostal

Bristolian wrote: »

...... I can't but think that they are been used as a scapegoat by politicians, media and many members of the general public.

No it hasn't. The RC Church in this country gets an incredibly easy ride from the media and politicians in this country, for the most part. That is why Kenny's speech is so unusual. And as for the general public, well, the RC Church gets the State to brainwash over 90% of the nations children with its revolting, pernicious dogma in our primary schools. That is why so many people shy away from criticising the Church too harshly or at all.

Bristolian wrote: »

it is important to remember that abuse is rife in society

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. That which can be asserted without evidence can dismissed without evidence. Etc.

Bristolian wrote: »

and that there is significantly less chance of been abused by priests then by the members of any other profession.

Nonsense. Most corporations and employers that I know of don't believe in covering up for their employees child-rape, in order to protect their organisations public reputation. The Catholic Church employs this strategy for managing the problem of its priests raping and abusing children consistently.

Bristolian wrote: »

Of course priests shouldn't do it at all but by focusing all our anger on the church we forget that many more children are at risk because of the neglect of state institutions and the dysfunction within families.

Classic example of the Minimisation and Denial propaganda technique. "Oh, every one else is doing it too. Abuse of children is a huge problem, the catholic church only owns a tiny part of this huge problem. Stop beating up on us." Hows about this: Harming children is wrong. End of story. Hiding behind other peoples alleged abuse, as a diversionary tactic, is pathetic.

Bristolian wrote: »

Over the past ten years hardly anyone has been abused by church personnel as it has got it's child safeguarding act together

No it hasn't. It never will. Children continue to be raped by priests who have been trafficked to South America and Africa. Ratzinger still hasn't given his bishops unequivocal orders to hand over child-raping priests to the police in whose jurisdiction the crimes were committed. The RC Church still refuses to co-operate with police and civil investigations of systematic child abuse. It tries to obstruct civil justice at every turn and every opportunity. As long as the pointy hat brigade believes that they take their orders from the supernatural non-entity that they claim to represent, rather than from simple human decency, they shall continue to use these tactics. That is why their organisation deserves to wither and die.

Bristolian wrote: »

yet many hundreds of children are at risk and some of even died under the so called care of state bodies.

The RC Church doesn't get to lecture anybody about child welfare anymore.

Bristolian

I don't always agree with David Quinn and I think he is often too quick to defend the Church's tendency to cover up scandal but this article from Friday July 15th gives the lie to many of the assumptions that are made in the media and in boards like this.

"HOW many people in Ireland know that the clerical abuse scandals peaked in the 1970s and 1980s? How many know that of the several hundred allegations received by the church in the last two years, almost none relate to incidents that happened in the last 10 years?

How many know that a large section of public opinion grossly overestimates the number of child abusers in the priesthood, as a Royal College of Surgeons survey some years ago ascertained?

How many know that Catholic priests are no more likely to abuse children than comparable groups, which is what 'Newsweek' magazine discovered when it contacted US insurance companies to determine whether they charged a higher risk premium for Catholic priests than for other clergy?

How many know that the Cloyne Report itself acknowledges that the church's child-protection guidelines are better than the State's guidelines? It says that compared with the church's guidelines, the State's are "less precise and more difficult to implement".

It would be safe to bet that only a small proportion of the public could correctly answer the above questions.

The reason for this is that our media have no interest in making the answers known so instead we have a public that believes the phenomenon of child abuse is a particularly and peculiarly Catholic one.

The Irish church has rightly been excoriated over its child-protection failings.

The Vatican is also in the firing line. It is in the firing line because it has never made the Irish church's child-protection policy a part of church, or canon law, thereby making it mandatory, and because it has opposed mandatory reporting of child abuse allegations.

But in these two regards, the State's failures are identical to the Vatican's. The Irish State's child-protection policy, Children First, is only now being given a statutory footing and only now is the State adopting a mandatory reporting policy.

So if the Vatican deserves to be in the firing line, so does the State. But it is not in the firing line to anything like the same extent. Why not?

In fact, the State's failings in the field of child protection are manifold but they have never resulted in anything like the coverage, and therefore in anything like the degree of public outrage, given to the church's failings.

For example, a few years ago the government released a three-volume report dealing with the implementation of Children First.

Of those surveyed for it, only 16pc said the Children First guidelines were working well. Only 27pc said that the guidelines in respect of the handling of abuse allegations received by the State were being properly adhered to.

Most incredibly of all, when asked whether the HSE and the gardai were "acting in accordance with the Children First guidelines", only 13pc said 'Yes'.

This is why child-protection expert Geoffrey Shannon told RTE's 'Morning Ireland' yesterday that the failure to properly implement Children First has been abject, and it is why he accused the HSE of adopting an "a la carte approach" to the guidelines.

Similarly, the new director for child and family services in the country, Gordon Jeyes, said recently that Ireland doesn't have "a proper child-protection system".

But while there has been huge pressure on the church to get its house in order, nothing like the same pressure has been put on the State, even though the State's failure to properly abide by its own guidelines has been abysmal.

Shannon is currently presiding over an investigation into the deaths of 200 children in the last 10 years who were in the care of the State, or who were known to the State's care services.

These deaths, from violence, suicide, drug overdose, from possibly preventable diseases, have received nothing like the publicity the church scandals have received, even though they are still happening.

Shannon's report is due out some time in the autumn. When it comes out, will there be a press conference presided over by government ministers as there was with the Cloyne Report?

Will RTE broadcast the press conference live? Will its programmes feature one inveterate critic of the HSE after another? Will the first 20 minutes of its news at both 6.01 and 9pm deal with the report as was the case on Wednesday when the Cloyne Report was published?

Will there be a 'Prime Time' special? Will RTE commission several emotionally charged, two-part documentaries cataloguing the circumstances in which some of the 200 children died?

Will HSE employees who abjectly failed to protect children have to resign, or at least be named, as has rightly happened in the case of the church? Will the RTE board ask the station why it gives so much coverage to the church's child-protection failings and so little to the State's failings by comparison?

The answer to all these questions is no, because the unpalatable truth is that the only child-protection failures deemed worthy of saturation coverage are the failures of the church.

Irish Independent"

The fact is that children are more at risk from other significant adults in their lives than they are from church personnel. Because these adults are often family members the victims suffer in silence. This does not excuse the appalling behaviour of some priests and bishops. If only one priests abused or one bishop covered up abuse then it is a disgrace and unacceptable. My point is... we cannot be forced to swallow the line that this is a church problem only. If we do then countless victims will go on suffering in silence. Society has to except that there is something deeply wrong in the psyche of between 3 and 8% of people that causes them to do such harm and begin to treat the problem seriously.

Galvasean

Bristolian wrote: »

My point is

The only point you made in that post is a complete and utter unwillingness to take in the glaring evidence contrary to your position which has been quite obviously made available to you.

MagicMarker

Bristolian wrote: »

The fact is that children are more at risk from other significant adults in their lives than they are from church personnel. Because these adults are often family members the victims suffer in silence. This does not excuse the appalling behaviour of some priests and bishops. If only one priests abused or one bishop covered up abuse then it is a disgrace and unacceptable. My point is... we cannot be forced to swallow the line that this is a church problem only. If we do then countless victims will go on suffering in silence. Society has to except that there is something deeply wrong in the psyche of between 3 and 8% of people that causes them to do such harm and begin to treat the problem seriously.

I'm sorry, when did people start saying that only priests are pedos? I must have missed that.

It's not one priest or bishop who covered up the abuse, it was whole organisation, rising to the very top.

Bristolian

Just thought I'd add Kevin Myers article from today's independent to the above. Kevin is not renowned as a friend of the Roman church but he does have the bottle to speak out when he knows that something is not quite right and particularly when the 'politically correct' brigade try to force something down our throats to further their own agenda.

Enda Kenny leads the Paisleyite lynch mob
Friday July 22 2011
WHAT happens when the Taoiseach addresses the Dail like a particularly enraged caller to a phone-in radio programme? Do harmony, lucidity, thought, care and reason result?

Or does public life begin to resemble a mob in a market place? And if the speaker on the platform is sounding inflammatory, what exactly is happening at the back of the crowd, where young men appear to be gathering rocks?

The last person to use such unforgiving and disdainful language about the Vatican was Ian Paisley -- the old Paisley, mind, not the dottily babbling and cheery old grand-uncle that has emerged in recent years. Go back 40 years and you will find in the pages of 'The Protestant Telegraph' precisely the kind of vituperative talk that graced Enda Kenny's speech to the Dail on Wednesday. This now, from the leader of Fine Gael, the party which was once a political extension of the Catholic Church and which faithfully did its bidding: hence the Taoiseach's party and governmental predecessor, Liam Cosgrave, actually voting against his own government's bill to allow the sale of contraceptives.

The Taoiseach's allegations and tone were thus unprecedented: "Because for the first time in Ireland, a report into child sexual abuse exposes an attempt by the Holy See to frustrate an inquiry in a sovereign, democratic republic ... as little as three years ago, not three decades ago."

(What? As recently as three years ago? No, actually. A Government spokesman later explained this did not refer to any specific event, but described the cumulative effect of the Vatican's actions. Quite so: what need of accuracy when the mob is abroad?)

The Cloyne Report, he continued, "excavates the dysfunction, disconnection, elitism ... the narcissism... that dominate the culture of the Vatican to this day."

(Rubbish again: Cloyne was into Cloyne and not into the Vatican, and moreover, it studiously avoided the vituperative Kenny terminology, of "rape", "torture" and so on).

However, the Taoiseach did not use such strong language about the failings of this State: "The unseemly bickering between the Minister for Children and the HSE over the statutory powers to deal with extra-familial abuse, the failure to produce legislation to enable the exchange of soft information as promised ... "

So, on the one hand "narcissism, elitism, dysfunction, disconnection", by the Vatican: on the other, "unseemly bickering", by the State. And all this, after the revelations about the Roscommon incest case or the brutality of the mother towards her children exposed in last week's court case in Galway: yet the savagery of both cases vastly exceeded anything done by any priest in recent times. Needless to say, both families were in HSE "care".

The measured words of the Vatican press officer Fr Federico Lombardi are barely audible beside the Taoiseach's shrill outpourings: "Therefore, the severity of certain criticisms of the Vatican are (sic) curious, as if the Holy See was guilty of not having given merit under canon law to norms which a State did not consider necessary to give value under civil law."

In other words, the Government of Ireland is denouncing the Vatican for not introducing those very changes to its canon law which it had itself failed to introduce to its civil code. To remind you: in February, 1998, the then Taoiseach Bertie Ahern announced that mandatory reporting of child sex abuse would be introduced within the lifetime of that government. Yet here we are, thirteen and-a-half years later, and this has still not happened.

WHY? Is it because the very concept of mandatory reporting of abuse escapes easy legal definition? For when does "mandatory reporting" simply become passing on tittle-tattle? Moreover, the Catholic Church cannot operate outside its own canon laws: it is bound by them, as the State is bound by the civil laws. So why this expectation that the Catholic Church can select whatever laws it likes, like a child at a pick and mix sweet counter?

The Irish Catholic Church and Irish nationalism have been conjoined twins for over two centuries, and it's often difficult to say who did what. Did Irish Catholicism achieve the political power that it did simply because the Irish people wanted it that way? Or did the Catholic Church bully Irish politicians into doing its will? But where did the clergy for this power-obsessed Irish Church come from? Mars? Complex matters indeed, and ones that are more extensively elucidated in Mary Kenny's brilliant 'Goodbye to Catholic Ireland'.

As an opponent of the political power of the Catholic Church all my adult life, I will just say this. The nuns of Ireland ran our hospitals with greater efficiency than the HSE, and at far less cost. The Celtic Tiger was made possible by a conservative educational system that was largely the creation of the Catholic Church. Tens of thousands of Irish people became priests, brothers and nuns, in the fond and fervent expectation that they would be serving God and the needs of others, not themselves or their own appetites. As the cataclysm of hate, hysteria and humbug washes the Catholic Church out of our lives, it is worth remembering those basic truths.

Irish Independent

MagicMarker

Do you have any of your own opinions that you'd like to share?