An opinion piece for the Irish Daily Mail first published May 26 2009

Over the past weekend senior church figures including cardinal Sean Brady and Archbishop Diarmuid Martin have called upon the religious congregations to look again at the now notorious indemnity deal they negotiated with the state back in 2002. That deal, done in the last days of an outgoing Government, fully indemnified the religious orders against all future financial liability resulting from cases taken by victims of institutional abuse. The deal saw the church contribute €127 million to the now total estimated cost of €1.3billion – less than ten percent.

The Ryan report is frank in its view of the relationship between the Catholic church and the state when it came to responding to child abuse in state-funded, Catholic Church institutions. Mr Justice Ryan describes the attitude of the department of education to the church as ‘deferential and submissive’. The department, which ought to have had a supervisory and inspection role, ‘generally saw itself as facilitating the congregations’.

If the attitude of Dr Michael Woods and former Taoiseach Bertie Ahern is any indication of how that relationship stood in 2002 when the infamous deal was struck, it appears that this may well remain the case.

In 2002, when the BBC film suing the pope was broadcast, the film where I spoke about how I had been abused by Fr. Sean Fortune, Bertie Ahern was asked if he had any comment to make on the public uproar about the cover up of child abuse in the diocese of ferns. He didn’t have a thing to offer.

‘I haven’t really been following that at all,’ he proclaimed. ‘It’s really a matter for the church; it’s not a matter for politicians. I’m not going to cross politics and religion.’

I remember being dumbstruck at the ignorance of that view. The head of our government believed that the abuse of children by priests in Ireland was not a matter for the state. That child protection and responses to such serious crimes was not the business of the state. No wonder, it seemed to me, that such abuse had been able to continue with impunity and that errant clerics were left free to rape and abuse in dioceses across Ireland. No wonder that children were so abandoned by a state whose attitude of deference rendered it submissive to an organisation it had an obligation to hold to account for the savage harm it inflicted upon children in institutional ‘care’.

Over this past weekend we saw further defence of an indefensible deal and more evidence of a blinkered, ill informed ignorance of the reality of a dark past.

The state, it would appear, was reluctant to bankrupt the church by forcing them to be properly accountable for their failures and crimes. Why?

Why should the church, like any other entity, not be held to account? If the consequence of their actions is that they become bankrupt then surely, so be it. Perhaps in order to rebuild elements of a church that has so abandoned their founding Christian values they must first be torn down. Irish society built up the Catholic Church in Ireland through financial donations, volunteering and vocations. If Ireland values a renewed, healthy reformed Catholic Church it will do so again. What gave Messers Ahern and Woods the right to make that decision for us? What gave them the right to decide that we would happily underwrite the Catholic Church and protect it from the consequences of its own actions? Isn’t that up to us to decide for ourselves? Isn’t it time that the church and the state in this country were finally truly separate entities?

The Ryan Report has achieved a lot. It has entirely vindicated the words of victims who suffered barbarism at the hands of those whose duty, and professed vocation, should have demanded tender and Christian care. What it has not delivered at all though is justice.

Justice demands accountability. It demands that the perpetrator of a wrong be held accountable for their actions and that they make reparation for the harm caused to their victims. This has not happened.

No one has been named in the report, for understandable legal reasons, though some names are beginning to emerge into the public arena through the media. Few have been prosecuted through the courts, and the evidence collected by the commission cannot now be used to prosecute those found to have committed heinous crimes against children. There has been no legal accountability, no naming of those responsible and no accountability, apart from before the court of public opinion, of the institution so responsible for these shocking atrocities.

The state, through its flawed systems and deferential attitudes, has failed victims of abuse in institutions once again.

And so we find ourselves in a position where ministers suggest that it would be helpful if the congregations were prepared to reopen and renegotiate the deal they struck with Dr Woods. Yet again the church will not be held to account but requested an agreement to offer a ‘gesture’ as Archbishop Martin put it yesterday.

Well, gestures are not good enough. Accountability is not something that ought be in the gift of the perpetrator, rather it should be ensured through the actions of a society focused on justice.

The state must put in place a new process. For a start it must carry out a full audit of the assets of all religious congregations and bodies implicated in the Ryan Report. It should determine the value of all available assets and whether there has been any transfer of assets in recent years to put them beyond the reach of the state. We need a NAMA for the church, a body to assess and then seize assets which can be used to ensure at least financial accountability by those responsible for the crimes detailed in the Ryan Report.

One other thought. Cardinal Sean Brady has called for a ‘one church response’ to the findings of the Ryan Report. Let’s hold him to that. After all, bishops are the superiors in their dioceses. They and they alone determine whether a religious order can operate within the boundaries of their individual kingdoms.

And bishops are not without responsibility for abuse in institutions. In the case of those operated by the sisters of mercy they have some direct responsibility. Until 1994 there was no national governance structure for that particular order. Instead there were twenty-six separate provinces with leadership teams who reported to their diocesan bishop. The bishop was their superior. It seems to me that it is now time to ask the bishops what responsibility they accept for abuse perpetrated in institutions under their control.

I have often been heartened by the courage and frankness of Diarmuid Martin. He has shown a capacity for bold and radical leadership. We need more of that now.

He and Cardinal Brady are in a position to do more than suggest a new approach by the religious orders. They can insist upon change as a condition of allowing those same orders to operate within their dioceses – as can their brother bishops.

And what of Rome? Where does the Vatican sit in respect of this ‘one church response’? Given the wealth held by Rome surely it’s not too much to ask that this one church to which we have sworn our allegiance every Sunday for so many years might now agree to sell off some of its art, surrender its penchant for ermine-trimmed robes and grandiose exhibitions of wealth in order to ensure redress for the crimes of those who operated in its name.

Perhaps, through such a return to the true Christian values of its founder, we might even witness a renewed and resurgent church, renewed by newfound honesty and humility – and finally able to look to the future.

Colm O’Gorman is the author of Beyond Belief, published by Hodder & Stoughton.