REFLECTION ON RYAN REPORT

The Ryan report
This whole saga raises a hornet’s nest within my breast.

Briefly, it is a state-commissioned report of a nine-year investigation into institutional abuse of children in Ireland over a period of sixty years.

It is not that I was a victim of such institutional abuse but I was abused sexually at 18 by a then young Catholic Priest. I do not name him because he is probably deceased and cannot defend himself. He left the priesthood in the early 1960s.

I also experienced in a Catholic parish, the dramatic events surrounding a paedophile priest who had been our parish priest during the 1990s. The shocking impact this had on the whole parish, together with the perceived poor handling of this event by the church itself, lives with me forever as it has coloured my whole perception of the ramifications of abuse on religious and spiritual belief, personally and collectively.

There has been much written about the published report so I am limiting myself to how and why this impacts on me personally.

My initial reaction was around ‘not naming’ the actual perpetrator which I felt was a betrayal covertly metered out to the survivors, living and dead.

I wrote to a friend after the initial New York Times op-ed was published on 22 May:

“The express reason for an expensive nine-year investigation resulting in a 2600 page report must be that the Irish Government was doing whatever it took to ensure such a horror would never again take place. They must have identified perpetrators and those [just] as guilty in trying to cover up. Another Irish journalist who grew up in the 50s in Ireland said it reads like a horror movie and covered mass brutalisation of hundreds of 1000s of children over a period of 60 YEARS.

“The outrage at the ‘not naming’ is probably more to do with the betrayal once felt by the cover-ups in the church and now seemingly another similar betrayal by their government. Also the fact that it was tax-payers money that paid for this investigation: salaries and cost of producing a lengthy report etc, I would imagine they feel short-changed. This report is also acknowledging state complicity in the abuse – by turning a blind eye to what was going on.

“I doubt if you or I could really understand having not experienced a country like Ireland -- ruled then by an all-powerful Catholic church. I suppose because it is a country close to my Irish heart: I have stood on the grave of my ancestor McSharrys feeling a deep emotional connection so that now I want to weep [and rage] with them over this.”

Three points given by my friend in response and apart from the fact that he is against ‘naming’ perpetrators:

1) The fact that sometimes the allegations of abuse are false;

2) There is a lot of hypocrisy around this issue of child abuse in the church;

3) Jansenistic influence on society and especially the family unit during the era reported on.

I would not argue that people have and do make false allegations against priests. This could be for personal reasons: revenge or some other personal objective; ideological reasons to attack the church, but mostly because there is big money involved! This is all, I believe, a reaction to the actual initial abuse of unfettered power that the Catholic Church exercised during that time. My friend pointed out that the worst nightmare of priests today is to have a false allegation made against them as it virtually kills their priesthood (my interpretation of his meaning). The calumny exercised today is a result of the calumny of official church representatives in betraying Christ.

I agree also that there is a lot of hypocrisy exercised around this exposure of child abuse. We are all weak and sinful. Is hypocrisy not at the root of all sin? Our giving in to excessive vices juxtaposed against our innate goodness (in the image of God) is blatant hypocrisy. The excessive abuse of power by the Church is blatant hypocrisy (and worse).

My argument, therefore, would be that all hypocrisy must be exposed fully in order for justice to be seen to be done! If justice is not seen to be done there is very little chance that a new ‘Ireland’ can be built. All the rot of the old has to be eradicated before a new foundation can be laid. (Read also the current editorial in South Africa’s only Catholic Newspaper, The Southern Cross). My interpretation of the popular adage “You have to acknowledge the problem before you can begin to seek a solution”, in this instance would be that the names of guilty (as in a court or some judicial or disciplinary action) must be named before transformation of the system can begin.

If it is true that Jansenism was entrenched in the cultural and societal norms of that era, then the Roman Catholic Church covertly if not overtly influenced this. In ruling the country as a whole, it must have influenced this ideology. It does not help identify the problem so that an effective solution can be implemented, by saying that a greater percentage of abusers were parents and relatives. It is valuable to be aware that all abuse is not perpetrated by Catholic religious. The blame for the abomination that occurred in this particular time – called endemic sexual abuse of children – can only be laid at the door of the institution that wielded the most authority. The whole expensive exercise resulting in the Ryan report is not about blaming, but about bringing to light something which should never, ever have occurred in the name of Jesus Christ and should never happen again.

No, Jansenism raises only for me a primary question: What is the purpose of good religion?

I enjoyed the description of the church at that time that the editor gives in The Southern Cross editorial: ‘inebriated with the hubris of its unchallenged power’.

The Church failed abominably, betraying the innocent victims but what I detest most is that the system is still so ‘insular’ paying lip-serve to the ideal of ‘catholic = universal’. This began with Roman hierarchy assuming attitudes and trappings of the Roman Empire. To this day some of those attitudes and trappings remain in place.

The Irish secular state was equally culpable because, after all, what is a country’s need for good governance if not to have effective checks and balances in place?

I do not feel callous about the fears of innocent priests but all priests need to accept that suffering whether because of false allegations or another source is par for the course – especially if they believe that their vocation is as ‘persona Christi’.

Another point was raised: Why was a comparative report from an investigation into secular institutions not carried out during the same time? Surely this would have been demanded by the Church authorities or at least the heads of the religious institutions implicated.

Finally, I must say that what bothers me the most is that in the area of allegations, guilt and defence of integrity etc., I see the child, the young nun, the immature lay person, as unable to protect and defend themselves. However, the priest is well educated and has a whole organisation behind him whose interests are with his well being. Same for professional, educated lay adults.