Cloyne: Arch. Martin on Church and State moving forward together
“Wherever we go from here we have to go together”, says Archbishop Diarmuid Martin
of Dublin speaking to Vatican Radio, Saturday, following the publication of the Holy
See’s response to the Irish Government regarding the Cloyne report.
“The climate
of tension and polemics doesn’t help”, he adds, “but we also have to go forward following
the truth, making sure that what is said is true. That we go forward with a policy
of transparency and honesty in this and that any attempts to go back into a cover
up mode or mentality will only damage not just the Church itself, but it will damage
children. One of the things we have to remember is that Jesus identified children
as a sign of the kingdom and we have to learn again what that was saying to us and
how becoming like children, safeguarding and cherishing children is actually part
of the way Christians live and should live”.
Regarding the specifics of the
Vatican response, the Archbishop notes: “One of the things that struck me when I read
the section about the development of the policies of the Congregation for the Doctrine
of the Faith over the past ten years, is that over 20 times it stresses the need for
the Church to respect national laws on the reporting of the abuse cases, and that’s
a very, very strong affirmation of the position of the Congregation and of the Catholic
Church”.
Archbishop Martin notes that the distinct roles of Church and State
in safeguarding children is another essential element : “This brings us back to a
central point which is implicit in the Cloyne Reports phrase “if fully implemented”:
even the best norms in the world must be accompanied by an on-going process of independent
monitoring and reviewing of day-to-day practice. Within the Catholic Church this
is being undertaken by the National Board for the Safeguarding of Children. Its reviews
are underway and will be published. The primary responsibility for monitoring child
safeguarding measures in any dimension of Irish society belongs – I repeat – with
the State”.
In a statement released Saturday the Primate of Ireland also stated:
“One of the key points of the Taoiseach’s [Prime Minister] intervention was the assertion
that “the Holy See attempted to frustrate an enquiry in a sovereign democratic republic
as little as three years ago not three decades ago”. There is no evidence presented
in the Murphy Report to substantiate this, the Holy See could find no evidence and
the Department of An Taoiseach’s office said that the Taoiseach was not referring
to any specific event. This merits explanation”. Listen to his full interview
with Emer McCarthy:
Please
find, below, the full text of Archbishop Martin's comments, released by the Press
Office of the Irish Bishops
Comments of Archbishop Diarmuid Martin on
the response of the Holy See to the Government of Ireland The Vatican response
to the Irish government is detailed and comprehensive. It is serious, sober in tone
and it addresses broader questions of Church policy on child safeguarding. My hope
is that it will be understood and received as such and not be an occasion just for
added polemics. Polemics really do very little for the protection of children and
the support of survivors. Honest cooperation between Church and State on child
safeguarding issues is particularly important in this country where the Church still
plays an important role in communities. The primary role and responsibility of the
State in ensuring the protection of children must, however, be unambiguously recognised
by all. I was quite struck, however, in reading the section of the Holy See’s response
dealing with the evolution of the policies of the Congregation for the Doctrine of
the Faith over the past ten years, that on over twenty occasions these documents mention
cooperation between Church and State and the need for the Church to respect national
laws on the reporting of abuse cases. I would like to comment on a number of specific
issues. Much emphasis is placed on an intervention by Cardinal Dario Castrillon
Hoyos in 1997. I would say two things on that 1997 document:
Effectively,
if you look at it, the intervention did not in fact impede the Irish Bishops in unanimously
approving the Framework Document, in applying it and in consistently developing that
framework into the current positions of the Irish Church. The current Standards and
Guidance documents have the full support of Pope Benedict XVI as was stated in his
Letter to Irish Catholics and are described in the Cloyne Report as “high standards
which, if fully implemented, would afford proper protection to children”. It was
said that the intervention of Cardinal Castrillon gave some people the opportunity
to brush aside the Framework Document. But the fact is that these same people who
were prepared to brush aside the Framework Document, continued to reject the clear
norms approved by Pope Benedict when they were published. They were people who regarded
only their own views and would take no note of study documents, of Framework Documents
or even of approved papal norms. These people may be few but the damage they caused
was huge.
This brings us back to a central point which is implicit in
the Cloyne Reports phrase “if fully implemented”: even the best norms in the world
must be accompanied by an on-going process of independent monitoring and reviewing
of day-to-day practice. Within the Catholic Church this is being undertaken by the
National Board for the Safeguarding of Children. Its reviews are underway and will
be published. The primary responsibility for monitoring child safeguarding measures
in any dimension of Irish society belongs – I repeat – with the State. One of
the key points of the Taoiseach’s intervention was the assertion that “the Holy See
attempted to frustrate an enquiry in a sovereign democratic republic as little as
three years ago not three decades ago”. There is no evidence presented in the Murphy
Report to substantiate this, the Holy See could find no evidence and the Department
of An Taoiseach’s office said that the Taoiseach was not referring to any specific
event. This merits explanation. Similarly the Holy See rightly rejects the use
of a text of Cardinal Ratzinger which was made in a totally different context and
had no relevance to the question of public policy. The document addressed an issue
which was discussed over recent years concerning the alleged refusal of the Holy See
to grant a recognitio to the 1996 Framework Document. The Vatican response shows that
the Irish Bishops preferred not to have such recognitio and never initiated the canonical
procedures which such a recognitio required. Where do we go from here? We are
at a crucial moment regarding the future of child safeguarding in Ireland. Reading
the Vatican report on the discussion of mandatory reporting that took place over fifteen
years ago, one of my fears is that the same elements who had reservations then, and
not just in the Church, may well reappear today. This government is the first government
in Irish history to dedicate a full cabinet ministry to children’s issues. This augurs
well for the future. We need that future to be framed within a climate of cooperation
on all sides. The time has long since past to talk about child protection issues
only in the future tense. Ireland owes it to survivors and to children to make this
new juncture a real changing point.