BishopAccountability.org
	Cowen Failed to Communicate Country's Outrage at Child Abuse The Irish Times December 5, 2009 http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2009/1205/1224260145115.html The Taoiseach’s most high-profile intervention on the abuse was to defend the Vatican, writes NOEL WHELAN THE TAOISEACH’S comments on how the Vatican and its representative in Ireland dealt with requests for information from the Murphy commission was extraordinary on a number of levels. Both the tenor and content of the Taoiseach’s remarks in the Dail this week suggested he was not only seeking to explain the Vatican’s failure to respond to the commission’s request, but was also seeking to excuse and even justify that failure. It is a shame that the Taoiseach’s most high-profile intervention in the intense public debate following the publication of the Murphy report sounded defensive of the Vatican rather than adequately communicating the country’s outrage at the church’s connivance in the covering up of crime. The Murphy commission’s report details how in September 2006 it wrote to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome seeking details of any reports of clerical child sexual abuse conveyed by the Dublin archdiocese. It says the congregation did not reply but contacted the Department of Foreign Affairs, stating the commission had not used appropriate diplomatic channels. On Tuesday, the Taoiseach told the Dail that the Holy See responded to the Murphy commission’s request in March 2007 by a diplomatic note, sent by the Vatican secretariat of state to the Embassy of Ireland to the Holy See. It seems the embassy sent the diplomatic note home to the Department of Foreign Affairs, which sent it to the Department of Justice, which sent it to the Murphy commission. The Taoiseach said this note made it clear the Vatican was of the view that, as the commission was set up under the authority of the Government, it should have communicated its request through “diplomatic channels and in accordance with international laws and custom”. It is disappointing that the Taoiseach did not comment on the fact that the Vatican, which can at times be the most efficient bureaucracy in the world, took six months to reply to a commission of inquiry which by law was operating within a fixed timetable. It is even more regrettable that the Taoiseach offered no Government view on whether the Vatican was correct in its contention that the commission could only deal with it through diplomatic channels. The tone of the Taoiseach’s remarks suggests agreement with the Vatican. If so, he is very much mistaken. How could one possibly expect, in the first decade of the 21st century, that a commission inquiring into the covering up of clerical child sex abuse by both the Irish Catholic Church and State authorities should channel questions to the Vatican about communications from Dublin bishops through some convoluted inter-state diplomatic post bag process? The Taoiseach should have seen this Vatican ruse for what it was. The Vatican raised these outdated and inapplicable diplomatic protocols in order to stall and ultimately avoid co-operating with the commission’s investigations. There is no requirement in international law that a commission inquiring into church affairs deal with the Vatican only through diplomatic channels. The documents sought were reports about church affairs sent from Dublin archbishops to superiors in Rome and had nothing to do with the Vatican’s relations with the Government. The Murphy report also sets out how in February 2007 it wrote to the papal nuncio in Ireland seeking details of any report he had received from the Dublin archdiocese about clerical child sex abuse. This time the commission didn’t even get the courtesy of a reply. In the Dail the Taoiseach argued it was “not unreasonable” for the papal nuncio to assume the matter was dealt with by the reply sent through diplomatic channels by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. This comment from the Taoiseach fails to have regard to the distinction between the two separate roles which the papal nuncio performs in Ireland. The papal nuncio in Ireland, as elsewhere, wears two hats (or more correctly perhaps a cap and a mitre). He performs a diplomatic function as ambassador from the Holy See to the Irish Republic, and performs an ecclesiastical function as the pontiff’s spiritual representative to and overseer of diocesan bishops of the Catholic Church on the entire island of Ireland. The most peculiar part of the Taoiseach’s argument was his contention that “it would not be normal practice for a diplomatic mission to release papers to a body in its country of accreditation without an approach through the host government”. However, it was documents relating to the nuncio’s work in his ecclesiastical capacity which the Murphy commission wanted, not those relating to his diplomatic mission. There is no legal or diplomatic impediment to the Vatican or the papal nuncio telling the commission of inquiry what, if any, relevant documents they have about clerical abuse cases in the Dublin diocese. In an ideal world, the response of a Vatican chastened by international clerical abuse scandals would have been to send a letter by reply attaching relevant documents and offering any other assistance required. For the Vatican, insisting on outdated diplomatic privileges is more important than co-operating with an investigation into how child abuse by their priests was covered up. The Government should confront them on this. Next week when he meets the papal nuncio, the Minister for Foreign Affairs will get the opportunity to do just that.
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.