Catholic religious congregations: – more displays of scurrilous, evasive behaviour

A consequence of the publication of The Ryan Report, (chaired by Mr Justice Sean Ryan, left) into child abuse by 18 religious congregations in Ireland was that the congregations would offer more money to compensate victims.  The Irish Government made a deal with congregations in 2002 that effectively capped their contribution as €100 million.  This was before the numbers that were abused over many decades had been ascertained. 

The report was scathing in its findings, but even the week prior to its publication, the Christian Brothers were denying culpability.  When they report was published the congregations stonewalled.

The congregations met the Taoiseach on 5 June after publication and the issue of victim compensation was tabled and they agreed to pay more money into a compensation trust.  It was agreed that the congregations would provide an independent statements, authenticated by their financial advisors, of their religious position by 24 June.  While some of the smaller congregations met this deadline many of the larger congregations have missed it – yet, another example of brazen, impudent instance of thumbing their noses at society.

The Government was to have appointed a 3-person panel to evaluate these statements but has failed to do so.

The cabinet has accepted all recommendations of The Ryan Report and is to hold a press conference on Jul 28 to set out what this will mean in practice.

Rome Rule, corrupt power and Irish child abuse

The history of the Catholic Church in Ireland over the past 60 years provides specimen case studies that demonstrate the adage that ‘power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely’.  Irish bishops’ manipulated themselves into a position absolute power that was sufficiently robust to enable them panic the government of the day in much the same way as bankers do nowadays.  They did this without any mandate whatsoever except a presumption of trustworthiness, a benign acceptance that they act in the common good, like neighbourhood enforcers in gangland, the maintenance of secrecy and a tolerance for prevarication.  They were experts at flattering, smooching and cajoling politicians and still are.

Their deviousness was manifested in their manipulation of social policy on issues such as the availability of contraception, divorce and sex education and was clearly evident until the mid 1980’s.  But even before the publication on May 20th 2009 of The Ryan Report into child abuse at industrial schools, the Christian Brothers were routinely and stridently denying any culpability on their part.  There is now a new phenomena in Irish society – trust breakers who only respond to culpability when they are exposed.  They are wholly capable of reposing in a world of denial and obfuscation until the veil of secrecy is removed.

It is sometimes hard to comprehend the positive impact of the world wide web on the flow and velocity of information across the globe against this background and culture. I would imagine that the Irish bishops would have put a veto on the establishment of the internet in the early 1990’s had they the savvy to understand its potential. But, of course their technical know-how was restricted to the versatility of a fountain pen that used black ink and their cultivation of an ethos in Ireland that  ‘Home Rule is Rome Rule’ . 

A milestone of this wretched environment concerned the legislation in 1951 to facilitate what was known as Mother and Child Service Scheme that had been introduced by Dr Noel Browne TD, then Minister for Health.  Browne became a minister on his first day in the Dáil following the 1948 general election at the age of 33.  This was intended to provide free maternity care for all mothers and free healthcare for all children up to the age of 16 years.  Browne, a medical doctor, had a particular interest in the treatment of tuberculosis which had reached epidemic proportions in Ireland in the 1950’s and he was also keen to overhaul the standard of public healthcare.

The bishops did not agree with his proposals and fought them vigorously on seven grounds:

1. The State would control nationwide education relating to “very intimate matters of chastity – individual and conjugal”
   
2. The health service proposed, the believed, ought to be secured on an individual basis and by “lawful associations”.  This meant they did not want any doctors involved on whose neck they could not stamp their ecclesiastical jackboots.
   
3. They opposed the “undue and intimate interference in the relationship between parents, children and doctors”
   
4. They argued that because they proposed services would be funded through taxation that citizens would feel compelled to avail of them and they objected to this.
   
5. They considered that the raising of taxes to pay for a service “independent of the necessity or desire of the citizens to use the facilities provided” was objectionable.  I wonder what they would think of the Irish Government throwing €3 billion this month at the recently nationalised Anglo Irish Bank following the duplicity of its former Chairman, Sean FitzPatrick?
   
6. The proposed scheme would “when enacted on a nationwide basis would damage gravely the self reliance of parents, whose family wage or income would allow them duly to directly provide whatever medical treatment they wished to avail of”.
   
7. They were concerned that ministerial regulations rather than legislation would govern the service
   
8. They pronounced themselves pleased that the proposed scheme did not have the support of the Government, as a whole.

The foregoing gives some insight into the unlimited capacity to connive and Machiavellianism and the concept of choice being limited to options that they approved of.

The prime mover on the part of the bishops was the Archbishop of Dublin (1940-1972) , Dr John Charles McQuaid who acted as principal manipulator and lobbyist with the politicians.  The consequence of their lobbying was that the proposal failed; the minister resigned from office and the Taoiseach, John A. Costello TD, took direct responsibility for health.

But it was this culture that also facilitated rampant child sex abuse; a culture of absolutism, denial, obfuscation, intolerance, autocraticism and a total absence of accountability and vicarious responsibility.

Following the publication of The Ryan Report on May 20th 2009 into child abuse in industrial schools and the appalling vista of paedophilia that it reveals, Ireland is awaiting the publication of another major judicial report into child sex abuse by priests in the archdiocese of Dublin.  This is likely to implicate up to 15 bishops and 4 archbishops, including McQuaid and his successors, Ryan (1972-1984), McNamara (1984-1987) and Connell (1988 – 2004) in respect of how they responded to these matters and handled allegations that abused individuals made.  Three of the four are long dead while Connell is a Cardinal.  Connell was appointed but the former president of the national seminary at Maynooth, Michael Ledwith, was strongly favoured by the then Nuncio, Dr Gaetano Alibrandi.  Ledwith resigned in disgrace from Maynooth College in 1994 and is no longer a Catholic.  He had been nominated for the presidency of the seminary for the former Bishop of Ferns, Dr Brendan Comiskey, who also resigned in disgrace in 2002 when sex abuse in his diocese and the schools of his diocese became endemic.

The Dublin report is understood to contain up to 1,000 pages of detailed forensic accounts of child abuse by priests but unlike The Ryan Report it will name perpetrators, three of whom are currently before the courts.

Two serving bishops Walsh of Killaloe and McAreavey of Dromore in Northern Ireland, sat on a tribunal governed by Canon Law in 1992 to investigate allegations against a former priest, Fr Tony Walsh.  They found him guilty and recommend that he be dismissed from the priesthood – but no civil authority was ever informed.

Walsh had been a curate in the Dublin working class suburb of Ballyfermot. 

He pleaded guilty in 1997 to 12 charges of indecently assaulting six boys aged from eight to 14 between 1980 and 1986. He had been in charge of 60 altar boys as well as the children's Mass each week.

The Chairman of that tribunal Monsignor Alex Stenson wrote to the Gardai indicating the address at which Walsh was residing following his dismissal. The letter also stated 'in view of Fr Walsh's behaviour in the past, you might give this information whatever attention you may think it deserves.'".  Stenson has been parish priest of Killester, Dublin since 2007.

Walsh decided to appeal the 1992 tribunal decision and he attended a funeral in Palmerstown, Dublin in 1995 as a 'priest' where he abused the 11 -year-old grandson of the deceased in a church toilet at the child’s grandfather’s funeral service, despite having been told to stay away from that funeral by two other serving curates.

But he also attended in full clerical attire including a Roman collar posing  was a friend of the family.

When this Dublin report is published bear in mind the history, context and the scurrilous and unaccountable culture that prevailed in this country for decades, if not centuries as being the oasis in which this cactus flourished.  There are even more formal reports pending. 

Emotionally charged weeks for child abuse victims and citizens alike

This is a picture of the author and the Taoiseach, Brian Cowen, that was taken in Boston in 2005.  Every now and then Mr Cowen emerges from his shell and makes a really compelling, even passionate, speech and he did so last Thursday, June 11, in Dáil Éireann in the course of a debate on the report of The Ryan Report into child abuse in industrial schools. Many other contributors also made excellent contributions, including Ruari Quinn TD and Michael D Higgins TD.  It was noted, that for once, there was no game-playing by the politicians in this debate.  Their genuine sense of outrage and sense of purpose was clearly evident.

The previous day, Wednesday June 10^th there was a march at lunch time from the Garden of Remembrance to Leinster House that attracted about 5,000 participants. Many travelled from well outside Dublin to demonstrate solidarity.  By all accounts it was a very dignified, sombre occasion but many of the victims interviewed in the media expressed what was a most deep-seated sense of relief as a result of the public recognition afforded them. President McAleese is to host them shortly at Áras an Uachtaráin. The President also made a statement on the findings of The Ryan Report. Victims met Mr Cowen on the evening of the march.

The Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse. was established in 2000 and their report was published its report on 20 May. Mr Cowen, in his contribution to the debate said that the Report is regarded as one of the most important reports, and almost certainly the gravest, ever published in the history of the State. It contains a shattering litany of abuse of children in care in Ireland over many decades. He acknowledged that it presents a searing indictment of the people who perpetrated that abuse, of the religious congregations who ran the institutions in which it took place, and of the organs of the State which failed in their duty to care for the children involved.

Cowen’s predecessor, Bertie Ahern TD, apologised to all victims on behalf of the State on 11 May 1999, ten years prior to the publication of the Report. The first recommendation of The Ryan Report is that a memorial be erected to the victims and that it be inscribed with the words of the Ahern apology.

“On behalf of the State and of all citizens of the State, the Government wishes to make a sincere and long overdue apology to the victims of childhood abuse for our collective failure to intervene, to detect their pain, to come to their rescue.”

The Government has accepted the recommendation of the Commission and admitted that the abuse of children, and the suffering they endured, occurred because of failures of systems and policy, of management and administration and of senior personnel who were concerned with industrial and reformatory schools. They are also deeply conscious that while the events inquired into by the Commission occurred, for the most part, many years ago, their consequences continue and live on in the burdens that the victims carry day by day. Cowen paid tribute to the dignity, courage and fortitude of witnesses who came forward to the Commission to recall events that happened those years ago and he remembered those former residents now deceased

The evidence presented in it makes clear that it was a correct decision to establish a system of redress which did not require victims to rely on the limitations of a compensation system based on litigation through the courts. Some people have had criticisms to make about the manner in which the redress board dealt with issues. However, the Taoiseach stated that it was right to have an approach which enabled survivors to be compensated without having to go through the courts and with a very different approach to proof and evidence.

This Report has radically changed the public perception of what went on in the institutions and the accounts of victims on radio talk shows have been very compelling. It has vindicated once and for all what was said over the years by former residents and by some others on their behalf. It is no longer possible to deny or to doubt. The Commission has spoken, the case is closed.

The catalogue of horror and terror that was visited over many years on children in the care of religious congregations, placed there by the State, is absolutely appalling. It is made even more appalling, if that is possible, by the fact that those who perpetrated the abuse had promised to uphold and practise the gospel of love and belonged to congregations founded to serve the very noblest ideals. It is worsened, too, by the repeated failure of the State, which placed the children in these institutions, to inspect or regulate the conditions in which they were held or the treatment to which they were subjected. The congregations should have loved them and the State should have cared about them. Neither did.

The report contains such horrific stories that it is difficult to know where to begin in talking about it. It provides detailed accounts of the regime and the suffering in seven schools run by the Christian Brothers, one by the Oblates of Mary Immaculate, one by the Department of Education itself, two by the Rosminian Order, one by the Presentation Brothers and one by the Brothers of Charity. It also describes eight schools run by nuns, mostly by the Sisters of Mercy but including two run by the Sisters of Charity, and gives short reviews of documentary evidence about two schools providing residential care to deaf girls, though in their case most allegations of abuse referred to the harshness with which a particular mode of learning was imposed and in general the standard of care in those two schools was good.

The Report contains the report of the Commission’s confidential committee, which heard evidence from over a thousand men and women who reported being abused as children in Irish institutions. It devotes a whole volume to the role of the Department of Education, examining the extent to which the Department ensured, or failed to ensure, that its rules and regulations were upheld by the institutions and that the basic standards set for the children taken into the care of the State were being met.

The conclusions of the report are stark. The Commission found that physical and emotional abuse and neglect were endemic features of the institutions. Sexual abuse occurred in many of them, primarily in boys’ institutions. Schools were run in a severe, regimented manner that imposed unreasonable and oppressive discipline on children and even on staff. Inspections were not random or unannounced and, as a result, the inspector did not get an accurate picture of conditions in the schools. The inspector rarely spoke to the children in the institutions.

The Report concludes that rules governing the use of corporal punishment were disregarded with the knowledge of the Department of Education. A climate of fear, created by pervasive, excessive and arbitrary punishment, permeated most of the institutions and all of those run for boys. Children lived with the daily terror of not knowing where the next beating was coming from.

As regards sexual abuse, the Report makes the truly appalling finding that sexual abuse was endemic in boys’ institutions. The situation in girls’ institutions was different; although girls were subjected to predatory sexual abuse by male employees or visitors or in outside placements, it was not systemic in girls’ schools.

Perpetrators of abuse were able to operate undetected for long periods at the core of institutions. Cases of sexual abuse were managed with a view to minimising the risk of public disclosure and consequent damage to the institution and the congregation. When lay people were discovered to have sexually abused, they were generally reported to the Garda. When a member of a congregation was found to be abusing, it was dealt with internally and not reported to the Garda. The report finds that when confronted with evidence of such abuse, the response was to transfer the offender to another location where, in many instances, he was free to abuse again. The relevant religious authorities knew that sexual abuse was a persistent problem in male religious organisations throughout the relevant period. However, the Report finds that some congregations remained defensive and disbelieving of much of the evidence heard by the investigation committee about sexual abuse in institutions, even where men had been convicted in court.

Sexual abuse of girls was generally taken seriously by the sisters in charge and lay staff were dismissed when their activities were discovered. However, the attitude of nuns made it difficult for them to deal with such cases candidly and openly and victims of sexual assault felt shame and fear of reporting sexual abuse.

The Report also makes bleak findings about neglect and the education provided in the schools. Children were frequently hungry, accommodation was cold, spartan and bleak, sanitary provision was primitive in most boys’ schools and general hygiene facilities were poor. Academic education was not seen as a priority for industrial school children and the industrial training afforded by all schools was of a nature that served the needs of the institution rather than those of the child.

There was a disturbing level of emotional abuse by religious and lay staff in institutions. Witnessing abuse of co-residents, seeing other children being beaten, seeing the humiliation of others and being forced to participate in beatings had a powerful and distressing impact, while separating siblings and restrictions on family contact were profoundly damaging for family relationships. Complaints by parents and others made to the Department of Education were not properly investigated. The Department sought instead to protect the religious congregations and schools.

It is not possible to adequately describe in detail the stories of physical, sexual and emotional abuse the Report contains and it would not be right to choose particular incidents or examples. Each story involves a child. No mother or father, no grandparent or brother or sister, no human being with a shred of feeling could read this report without constant and intense loathing and revulsion.

A haunting summary of the evils that were done and the opportunities that were lost. That paragraph recalls that many witnesses who complained of abuse nevertheless expressed some positive memories. Small gestures of kindness were vividly recalled. A word of consideration or encouragement or an act of sympathy or understanding had a profound effect. Adults aged in their 60s and 70s recalled seemingly insignificant events that had remained with them all their lives. Alas, often the act of kindness recalled in such a positive light arose from the simple fact that the staff member had not been given a beating when one was expected.

The Report concludes that more kindness and humanity would have gone far to make up for poor standards of care. How different now would be the lives of those who spent time in those institutions if acts of kindness and humanity, rather than of horror and abuse, had been their daily experience and how different, too, would be the reputations of the religious congregations and State.

The Report presents a portrait of Irish society which is deeply unsettling. How was it that so many children were committed to institutions where not only were they removed from care of their family but they were subjected to regimes of incarceration which were cold, impersonal and degrading when they were not violent, oppressive and abusive? How did the State, in whose name and through whose courts, police and laws children were consigned to institutions which were funded, regulated and inspected by the State, preside over such conditions for so many decades? How could religious communities, founded on the highest ideals of service and compassion for the poor, so completely turn their claimed vocation on its head and inflict such suffering and neglect almost as a matter of policy? It is a tribute to Mr. Justice Ryan and the members of the commission that their report brings together in a most persuasive fashion extensive material that helps us to begin to understand how and why this came about, as well as documenting with great care the reality of the sufferings endured by generations of children, neglected and abused in the so-called care of the State.

The historical survey contained in the report demonstrates how the industrial school system came to form part of the apparatus of social control which, together with the effects of sustained emigration, came to be a primary response to the endemic problems of under-development, under-employment and poverty. As the report notes, against the background of extreme poverty, some saw the schools as no worse than anything else and as offering children at least adequate food, clothing and housing.

Children’s allowances were introduced only in 1944 and only in respect of the third child and subsequent children. The Report notes that the decline in numbers committed to the schools coincided with that development. It also notes that the Adoption Act passed in 1952 and the general improvement in the economic situation from the late 1950s, accelerating in the 1960s, brought about a significant reduction in the numbers committed to schools. In this respect, the industrial schools formed part of a wider pattern.

Writing about the persistence of large mental hospitals in Ireland, the late Dr. Joseph Robins, who also wrote one of the first detailed accounts of the history of residential institutions for children and played a leading role in creating the modern child care system, wrote: “Institutionalisation both under the British administration and until recent times under native government was regarded by the authorities as the most economic and controllable way of dealing with social problems”. It is small wonder then that Irish society produced generations of what Dr. Robins rightly called “the lost children”.

The desperate economic and social conditions of many in Ireland were not in any sense an excuse for the conditions experienced by those who were committed to industrial schools. The report contains a devastating critique of the failure of the State, in particular through the Department of Education, to discharge its responsibilities in ways which would have protected children. The disregard for its own rules; the absence of any effective inspection system; the disregard of such problems as the limited inspection system revealed and of complaints from parents and others; the resistance to the growing volume of criticism and unease, including from other Departments and members of the Judiciary; the failure to act on the recommendations of a comprehensive review from an independent commission established by the Department in the 1930s at a time when the industrial school model was being replaced in the neighbouring jurisdiction; and the failure to exercise any proactive policy-making or standard setting role make for an overwhelming indictment of failure of responsibility.

The report attributes this to a deferential and submissive attitude of the Department of Education towards the congregations concerned which compromised its ability to carry out its statutory duty. This is undoubtedly a very significant part of the story. However, the evidence assembled in the report suggests that the Department shared, at least in the earlier years, much of the prejudice against the residents of industrial schools displayed by the general population. It is also clear the Department feared that interference in the school system could lead to the closure of the schools and a much greater financial liability for the State. In this, as in the behaviour of the religious congregations concerned, maintenance of the institutional system overshadowed other considerations, including the safety and not just the best interests of the children. Furthermore, the evidence in the report about conditions in Marlborough House Place of Detention, which was under the control and direct management of the Department, shows that the failings were not solely based on the involvement of the religious orders.

It was seldom in the industrial school system and the needs of children in the care of the State were raised. Even then, the discussion was generally about specific issues rather than the adequacy of policy and provision. As for the religious congregations concerned, the Report calls on them to examine how their ideals came to be debased by systemic abuse. It states: “they must ask themselves how they came to tolerate breaches of their own rules, and when sexual and physical abuse was discovered, how they responded to it, and to those who perpetrated it and more generally, how the interests of the institutions and the Congregations came to be placed ahead of those of the children who were in their care”. An initial attempt at such understanding is reflected in a submission from the Rosminian Order published by the commission and referred to approvingly in the report. It is necessary that the other congregations undertake a similar review since, in this as in all things, only the truth provides a basis for living with integrity.

Confronted with this appalling story, the Report naturally makes a wide range of recommendations. Some aim at alleviating or otherwise addressing the effects of the abuse on the people who suffered. These include that a memorial to the victims should be erected with the words of the apology made by my predecessor in May 1999 inscribed on it. Also, counselling services should continue to be provided to ex-residents and their families, family tracing services should be continued and the lessons of the past must be learned by the State and by the congregations.

The second set of recommendations is aimed at preventing, where possible, and reducing the incidence of abuse of children in institutions, and protecting children from such abuse. Briefly, these recommendations are that the overall policy and practice of child care should respect the rights and dignity of children and have as its primary focus their safe care and welfare.

In pursuit of this, national child care policy should be clearly articulated and reviewed on a regular basis and a method of evaluating the extent to which services meet the aims and objectives of the national child care policy should be devised. Rules and regulations must be enforced, breaches reported and sanctions applied. Services for children should be subject to regular inspections and these inspections should meet a specific set of requirements. Children in care should be able to communicate concerns without fear and should have a consistent care figure. They should not, save in exceptional circumstances, be cut off from their families and full personal records of children in care must be maintained. Finally, “Children First: National Guidelines for the Protection and Welfare of Children”, should be uniformly and consistently implemented throughout the State in dealing with allegations of abuse.

The Report has been published and its findings, conclusions and recommendations are known. It is proper that I should put on the record of this House the actions the Government has taken so far in response to it. In doing so, Mr Cowen said that the Government’s priority will continue to be the needs of the survivors, and that we will continue to engage with them in meeting those needs and in implementing the recommendations of the report that relate to them.

The Government held a special meeting on 26 May to discuss the report. A statement afterwards which reiterated their apology, on behalf of the the State and all Irish citizens, to the victims of childhood abuse for the failure to intervene, to detect their pain or to come to their rescue. The statement made clear that the Government accepts all of the recommendations of the Commission and is committed to their implementation, and that the Minister of State with responsibility for children and youth affairs, Barry Andrews TD, will develop an implementation plan for them that he will bring to the Government for its approval by the end of July.

The following day the Dáil passed a unanimous motion which among other things called on the congregations to commit to making further substantial contributions by way of reparation, in the context of discussion with the State, including to a trust to be set up and managed by the State for the support of victims and for other education and welfare purposes.

The Taoiseach and two ministers have met representatives of the 18 religious congregations. The congregations were told that the Government had accepted that the failings of the State had clearly contributed to the conditions in which the pain and suffering experienced by thousands of children in ways documented in the report of the commission came about and went undetected. They expressed the dismay and abhorrence which, with the whole of the population, the Government experienced on reading the report and the catalogue of suffering, deprivation and abuse which was the lot of so many children committed to institutions under the care of the religious congregations. They recognised that there was a variation in the extent to which the congregations at the meeting are covered by the report’s conclusions, and also that those now in leadership positions in the congregations, like the Government, are faced with the consequences of actions and failings of those who have gone before them in earlier generations. Some of the severest conclusions of the commission regarding religious congregations related to recent attitudes and behaviour.

The systemic nature of the findings and the sheer scale of the suffering endured by children and the grievous abuse of so many of them while in the care of the congregations meant that there is a moral responsibility to be faced. The view of the Government that further substantial contributions are required by way of reparation that is capable of being assessed by the public for their significance by reference to the full resources available to the congregations and in a context of the costs of well over €1 billion being incurred by the State.

It was agreed at the meeting that the congregations would meet with the other Ministers and Mr Cowen again shortly, where he expect them to outline to us the nature of the process by which their further contributions by way of reparation to the victims will be made. That process needs to be robust and transparent so that their response to all that has been revealed in the commission’s report meets the expectations of a public that is demanding a definitive, strong, clear, expeditious and sincere demonstration of the congregations commitment in this regard. The extent to which this is achieved will be assessed by the Government and we will consider what steps, if any, are necessary to ensure public confidence in the adequacy of any

The Residential Institutions Redress Board was set up to enable survivors to be compensated without having to go through the courts. The commission has reported with a clear and measured account of the suffering of children in our institutions, and with specific recommendations aimed at two objectives, namely to alleviate the effects of abuse on the people who suffered and to protect children in care from abuse.

The Government will work with the representatives of survivors to implement the recommendations relating to them. It will also have before it by the end of July a plan for implementing all of the report’s recommendations. While it is clear that putting all of the Report’s recommendations into effect will take time it is equally clear, given the abuse of children recounted in the Commission’s report, and the scale of it, the implementation of that plan, when approved, will be a major priority

Child Abuse Report – Stonewalling, Evasion and Obfuscation by religious congregations

Apart from the tragedy itself, I have been closely observing the unfolding events since The Ryan Report was published from the perspective of a ‘crisis management’ process and the associated manoeuvres.

The presumed public relations mouthpiece of the 18 congregations cited in the Report is the umbrella Conference of Religious of Ireland, (CORI), a body on which the leadership of individual congregations are represented. CORI coordinated the €128 million contribution and associated indemnity against further claims in June 2002. The persons acting for CORI were Sr Elizabeth Maxwell, Sr Helena O’Donoghue, both of whom are members of the Sisters of Mercy and Br Kevin Mullen of the Christian Brothers. Maxwell had been secretary-general of CORI at that time. The bill is €1.3 billion so the perpetrators are providing 10% and the taxpayer 90%. A single High Court action could have had more severe consequences.

It also published a an apology on behalf of these congregations at that time., the text of which was

“We accept that some children in residential institutions managed by our members suffered deprivation, physical and sexual abuse. We regret that, we apologise for it. We can never take away the pain experienced at the time by these children nor the shadow left over their adult lives. Today the congregations with the State are giving a concrete expression of their genuine desire to foster healing and reconciliation in the lives of former residents.”

There was an announcement immediately after the conclusion of this deal that CORI was working with the Irish Bishops Conference and the Irish Missionary Union since April 2002 to establish an ‘independent’ Commission on Child Sex Abuse. “The Commission was seen as a further step on the road to healing and reconciliation with people who were sexually abused by some of our members”. CORI agreed to work with the Commission in a desire to establish the truth of the extent of child sexual abuse and how complaints were handled. Maxwell expressed her “profound regret” in 2002 “that even one person had been abused by a religious”.

When the 2002 Redress Fund was set up it was not possible to predict the number of victims that would come forward but the number who actually did – 14,584 victims.

Overcoming Procedural Obfuscation

The first Chairman of the State inaugurated Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse (known now as The Ryan Report) was a High Court judge, Ms Justice Laffoy, who resigned as Chair of the Commission on 12 January 2004 because the Commission was not being given the necessary information and support. The Department of Education was to be cited in the Report as being deferential and submissive to the religious congregations. Laffoy was succeeded by Mr Justice Seán Ryan who was mandated to undertake his own independent review. He identified major impediments facing his Commission’s Investigation Committee.

If the work of the Investigation Committee were to continue unchanged, there would be no prospect of its work being completed within a reasonable time and at an acceptable cost. He suggested a number of changes that were needed to overcome the problems:

1. Amendments to the 2000 Act so as to focus the Investigation Committee on its core function, which was to inquire into abuse of children in institutions.
   
2. Changes to procedures which would enable allegations to be heard in logical units for hearings (Modules).
   
3. Publication of interim reports as the work proceeded.
   
4. Establishment of ‘trust’ between the parties as to the fairness of the hearings.

The work of the Investigation Committee was suspended from September 2003 until March 2004. Judgment was awaited in a High Court action brought by the Christian Brothers. This case sought judicial determination, inter alia, of the constitutionality of the Investigation Committee’s approach to making findings of abuse against elderly or deceased Brothers or those who could not properly answer the allegations

At a public meeting held in the Shelbourne Hotel in Dublin, on 7^th May 2004, the Investigation Committee announced its intention to make significant changes to deal with the obstacles to its work. The chairperson set out proposals for hearing selected witnesses in the investigation of institutions that had the largest number of complaints made against them; however, the larger institutions had far more complainants wishing to give evidence.

At that point in May 2004, the length and form that the hearings would take was difficult to assess. It was not known what, if any, objections were going to be raised. These uncertainties gave rise to some concern in the Investigation Committee, particularly in relation to larger institutions, and whether all hearings could be completed within a reasonable time. This would leave other potential witnesses out of the investigative process.

For most of the smaller institutions ( those against whom a small number of complaints had been made), the Investigation Committee believed it could hear all those who had notified the Committee of their intention to give evidence and who had then followed up with statements.

At the meeting on 7^th May 2004, the Committee published and circulated a position paper on the question of ‘naming and shaming’ abusers, which stated that the Inquiry was not going to be able to complete its work if it proceeded on the basis of naming abusers. The document suggested that, because of difficulties of proof, there would probably be many abusers in respect of whom the evidence fell short. There were risks that people not guilty of abuse could be named. A further point was the disparity that would exist between people who were named – necessarily, a limited number – and the larger cohort of people who had indeed committed abuse (as a matter of probability) but who were not named. These and other points were made in proposing the policy that the Investigation Committee would not name abusers in the report, and would proceed with the investigation on that basis.

Time was allowed for submissions to be made, and all parties were asked to assist the Investigation Committee with suggestions that would allow the process to move forward. No substantial submissions were received in respect of the policies outlined above.

At a further meeting in June 2004, the Committee announced its decision to proceed on the basis of selection of witnesses for the hearings. This applied only to the larger institutions, which were Artane, Letterfrack, Ferryhouse, Upton and Daingean. The policy of not naming abusers was applied generally.

The Commission sought amendments to the legislation to incorporate these changes, and these were set down in the Act of 2005.

The Investigation Committee at this time wrote to all complainants/solicitors to ascertain the number of complainants who wished to proceed with their application to be heard. As a result of this, 143 complainants withdrew their request to give evidence to the Investigation Committee, while 174 other complainants transferred to the Confidential Committee.

The Investigation Committee then proceeded with the work of the Inquiry.

Obfuscation following publication of The Ryan Report

CORI stated on 22 May 2009 that it was not aware of any plans for the 18 congregations to reconsider their contribution to the Redress Fund. The Irish Government gave them succour by stating the the deal was watertight from a legal standpoint.

Public opinion pickup pace in the aftermath of the publication of the Report and there was a deep unease both with respect to the burden-sharing of compensation and the sundering of public trust. The Bishop of Down and Connor, in a robust interview stated that an inter-disciplinary review of the Report’s findings was in order and the compensation issue needed to be reviewed. The Bishops Conference concurred with this on Monday, May 25 but there had been no interviews with CORI on radio or television news by that stage.

Marianne O’Connor, the current director-general of CORI participated in a 17-minute interview on RTE Radio 1 on Tuesday, May 26. O’Connor stated in her interview that “CORI has no executive role” with the congregations, notwithstanding the 2002 deal and apology it issued on behalf of the congregations. She “acknowledged the awful horror of the Report” but that CORI was not a direct party to the deal and the congregations did not wish to revisit the deal and that she was not a spokesperson for the congregations. The congregations expressed a wish to engage directly with survivors of abuse but did not elaborate on the nature of any new resources. She did not want any additional resources to threaten existing services provided by the congregations. Her moral argument for not reopening the deal was that Redress was “not the best vehicle” to deal with the Report’s consequences because it could end in a legal quagmire. Atonement and restitutions was to be the basis of their response.

The previous evening Michael O’Brien, a former Mayor of Clonmel participated in the current affairs television programme ‘Questions & Answers’ on Monday, May 25th and his graphic description of being raped and buggered by the Rosminians in Ferryhouse, Co Tipperary. He was one of a family of 8 who was committed to this industrial school. He described being raped and buggered by several Rosminian priests who gave him Holy Communion the morning after such episodes.

They caved on the principle of further compensation on Wednesday, May 27th. The Government, recognising that public sentiment was outraged, were now adamant that additional compensation must be forthcoming from the congregations and that the State would administer it.

This morning, Saturday May 30, is a bright sunny day and the main news headline is a report from Maxwell that the religious congregations do not see a role for the broader Irish Church in examining their failures in their duty of care to children because they are autonomous – so much for transparency and ggod faith. The wheel has therefore turned full circle since 27 June 2002 when all of these elements of the Catholic Church were sharing the same bath in there relentless search for cleanliness and their journey along the pathway of healing and reconciliation. We are not seeing, once again, wagons circling and ranks closing even though the abuse and cover-ups revealed in the Report was much greater and the sex abuse much more endemic than ever suspected.

Irish Catholic Church Abuse – second thoughts, at last, on more compensation

The Ryan Report was published on Wednesday, May 20th and the silence that ensued from the religious congregations for days afterwards was deafening, given their typical passion for public profile when the issue involves spending somebody else’s money on their pet objectives e.g. ‘the vulnerable’, ‘the isolated’ etc. Sadly, too many of ‘the vulnerable’ are by-products of their own gulags.

When they eventually emerged from their closet on Wednesday, May 27th, their message was ‘no money’, but we wish to interface privately and directly with victims of decades of abuse to provide a form of assistance that was neither ascertained, or possibly ascertainable. Their spokesman sounded like someone from the car park clampers advising that the clamps on the victims would be removed forthwith! I should emphasize that money alone will not recreate the public trust and esteem that these congregations have lost.

The Government had been hiding resolutely behind what were supposed to be the legal impediments to changing the 2002 deal – a contribution of €127 million and an absolute indemnity against further claims.

However, public opinion and sentiment moved briskly ahead of Government statements and the sense of outrage amongst the public was, and is, incandescent. There is a deep sense of public trust being grossly violated.

The religious congregations say they will now provide more resources which the Government, quite rightly, insist will be allocated by the State. An assistant commissioner of the Garda Siochána (police) has been mandated to look into the possibility of bringing forward criminal charges.

The President of Ireland, Mary McAleese, has been on a 1-week visit to Massachusetts and, given the worldwide publicity attaching to derring-do of the cited religious congregations, she must have been clearly embarrassed, humiliated as horrified as the rest of us. I’ve lived in Boston for 5 years and I can intimately empathise with the social predicament she faced as a consequence of this Report’s findings.

She is a president that the nation is truly and deeply proud of, an incumbent who has the measure of the office she holds and is always tempered in her public remarks and very adept at reaching a diversified audience. But she also stated clearly that if there is evidence of criminal wrongdoing perpetrators must answer. The President is usually closer to public opinion that the Government. She has been in office for 12 years and sustains an approval rating in the mid 90’s.

A Reputation in Shreds

Most adults in Ireland were aware of the harshness and austerity of the religious controlled gulags but the evidence of The Ryan Report brought everything into focus and exposed the unabated horror that was perpetuated in the name of Christ. Several of the victims were interviewed on radio this week and it was heart-rending to hear their stories. Thankfully, some of those who spoke enjoyed some stability in their lives and the security of a happy family. But all of them had to conceal their true background and identity from spouses that whose love, loyalty and friendship they have enjoyed for decades. There is not a single individual who has been abused that does not feel an enduring sense of shame that can be so deep rooted that it is actually hard to recognise for what it is.

The reputation of religious congregations has sunk so low that people now ask what possible function in society can untrustworthy organizations have? Their advocates, over the years, would remind people about the ‘good works’ and selfless priest, brothers and nuns’ whose basis sense of vocation and goodness should not be tarnished. But the reality is that all congregations have been holed beneath the water line.

The Report only dealt with a segment of the institutions they controlled – industrial schools and reformatories. But there are considerable number of religious personnel who held positions of trust in schools and boarding schools, such as the Franciscan-run Gormanston College and the Dominican-run Newbridge College who have been convicted of child sex abuse. We have reached the stage in Ireland, sadly, where the absence of this type of abuse is the exception rather than the rule.

The 2002 deal involved a contribution by the 18 religious congregations of €128 million that was capped and an indemnity against further claims was agreed with the Irish Government. The devious, duplicitous nature of these people is marked by the report that they have not even fulfilled their obligation under the terms of the 2002 agreement. They're are ripe with an abundance of fatuous excuses.

The efforts of the Conference of Religious of Ireland CORI in response to this Report will provide scholarly material on how not to respond to a major crisis for decades to come. Their initial response was to stonewall; to circle the wagons and to close ranks. But if they are now deciding to provide additional resources it is not motivated by spontaneous generosity. It is a consequence of them being publicly humiliated and seen as hypocrites and parasites. I don’t use these terms lightly. A hypocrite is a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, or principles that he, or she, does not actually posses, or a person who feigns some desirable, or publicly approved attitude? A parasite is a person that derives support or advantage through association from another person or institution, without giving any useful or proper return.

Their statement issued on May 25^th, refers to the “vast scale” of the abuse they perpetrated as being “horrendous” – not the abuse, merely the scale. Their initial reluctance to provide more money for compensation was stated to be based on any additional money “would only go to the Government!

They were also quick to advise that “the recommendations and conclusions of the Ryan Report are imperative (that is, unavoidable) for all those involved in the care of vulnerable people” . But their gulags’ closed some years ago so this statement so this admonishment does not refer to themselves but to third parties.

They were also scared at the prospect of a civil court action as the explanations below for their stated reason in 2002 for contributing to the Redress Fund reveals. Now, it is likely that the criminal courts may intruded into their tranquil lives either on indictment or as witnesses.

Finally, I found it interesting to reflect on where and why did these religious congregations become established. Nine of the 18 have a French origin and the French Revolution was a catalyst in some of them being established. All, but one, was established before the middle of the nineteenth century. The following milestones impacted on Irish society in their formative years:

1800: Act of Union, which shuttered the Anglo-Irish parliament in College Green, Dublin

1829: Catholic Emancipation: but the right to vote was restricted to holders of freehold property worth £10, not £2 as had been the case. This meant that the Catholics were emancipated and could become and MP, but the right to vote was not so widespread.

1845-1850: Irish potato Famine, which saw the population drop from 8 million to 6 million, of which one million starved to death and one million emigrated.

1868: Industrial Schools Act – which created the gulags that are the subject of The Ryan report

1869: Irish Church Act, which meant that the Anglican Church was no longer the official church of the Kingdom of Britain and Ireland, as it was then known.

This self-explanatory table lists the congregations cited, the year and place of their founding; whether they proffered a public apology; the number of schools they were in charge of which are pertinent to the Report and why the contributed to the Redress Fund set up in 2002. It is important to bear in mind that even though this Fund was to provide €128 million, that the religious congregations concerned have not even met that obligation. When ranks close and wagons circle – inertia is never far away!

Name of Congregation	Founded	Apology / Operations / Reason for contributing to Redress Fund
Rosminian Institute of Charity	1838 Italy	1999: Deep regrets Operated two industrial schools in Upton, Co Cork and Ferryhouse, Co Tipperary Contributed to Redress Fund because ‘it was the right thing to do’ and that the litigation route would be disastrous for all concerned.
The Dominican Order	1214 France	No apology Operated one orphanage in Dublin until 1993 Contributed to Redress Fund
The Sisters of Mercy	1831 Dublin	1996: Apology, following broadcast of ‘Dear Daughter’ 2004: Second apology Operated 26 industrial schools Contributed to Redress Fund to avoid litigation and to facilitate closure
Our Lady of Charity of the Good Shepherd	1641 France	No Apology Operated 4 industrial schools in Cork, Waterford, Limerick and Wexford Contributed to Redress Fund for pastoral and practical considerations – e.g. financial restraints, to avoid the huge cost of litigation and to avoid confrontation with ex residents.
The Presentation Brothers	1808 Waterford Ireland	No apology Operated industrial school at Greenmount, Cork Contributed to Redress Fund to avoid being sued
The Religious Sisters of Charity	1807 Dublin Ireland	No general apology, but concerned and sad about children in Madonna House; that the conviction of a male childcare worker for sex abuse made the issue ‘real’ for them and when another childcare worker was convicted they were appalled and the abuse by the accused caused ‘untold misery’, which they ‘regret’. Operated five industrial schools in Dublin and Kilkenny; 19 primary schools and eight post-primary schools Three staff convicted for child sex abuse for which apologies were tendered Contributed to Redress Fund for strong pastoral reasons and to avoid the rigour of litigation. Definition of abuse considered ‘so broad’.
The Christian Brothers	1802 Waterford Ireland	Deep regrets Operated six industrial schools and one residential school for deaf boys and numerous post-primary schools Contributed to Redress Fund because the Fund would not ‘make a judgement’ on complaints and to avoid protracted litigation.
The Daughters of Charity of St Vincent de Paul	1642 France	No apology Operated one industrial school, four orphanages, five centres for people with intellectual disability, an orthopaedic residential children’s hospital Contributed to Redress Fund – without hesitation
The Sisters of Our Lady of Charity of Refuge	1641 France	Associated with CORI apology Operated industrial school in Drumcondra and a reformatory in Kilmacud, Dublin Contributed to Redress Fund because 5 litigation cases were pending and that there could be others. To also avail of indemnity against litigation and to achieve closure
The Brothers of Charity	1807 Belgium	1995: Public apology Operated two schools for children with learning difficulties at Lota, Cork and Renmore, Galway; an adult psychiatric hospital in Waterford and a service for adults with learning difficulties at Clarenbridge, Galway and Limerick. Contributed to Redress Fund followed 50 civil claims. Fund enabled them elude protracted litigation process and consequences, trauma and confrontation. Redress also did not focus on particular episodes of abuse.
The Daughters of the Heart of Mary	1790 France	No apology Operated orphanage in Dun Laoghaire that cared for over 2,000 children; visiting priest convicted of sex abuse in 1997 Contributed to Redress Fund after one set of allegations was cited. Two other allegations ensured and Redress was deemed the best way to compensate. It would also avoid adversarial or conflict and it would avoid the putting of claims individually
The De La Salle Brothers	1894 France	No apology Operated industrial school in Finglas, Dublin between 1972 and 1994 Contributed to Redress Fund after eight compensation claims emerged and to achieve some certainty with respect to future litigation.
The Sisters of St Claire (Poor Claires)	1629 Dublin	No apology Operated an industrial school in Cavan and orphanage in Harold’s Cross Dublin. 35 children died in a fire in Cavan on 23 February 1943 Contributed to Redress Fund to assist former internees who maybe experiencing difficulties in their lives and to avoid confrontation at all costs and that the attribution of blame would be avoided.
The Presentation Sisters	1725 Cork	Operated industrial schools in Dundrum and Cashel, Co Tipperary Contributed to Redress Fund to avoid protracted litigation “which isn’t in anybody’s interest”
The Sisters of St Louis	1842 France	No apology Operates an industrial school at Bundoran, Co Donegal Contributed to Redress Fund to prevent the ordeal of past residents and the nuns having to go through the courts and long drawn out cases. They would also be indemnified against future claims.
The Hospitaller Order of St John of God	1537 Spain	No apology Operated a day and residential school at Blackrock, Co Dublin and other institutions. Contributed to Redress Fund to avoid litigation and indemnity was an attractive proposition
The Sisters of Nazareth	1933 France	No apology Operated a residential home for boys and girls in Sligo Contributed to Redress Fund as it offered a non-adversarial and speedy avenue and that Sisters would not have to attend hearings.
The Obates of Mary Immaculate	1826 France	1999: Deep Regrets Operated Daingean Reformatory, Co Offaly and a detention centre at Lusk, Co Dublin Contributed to Redress Fund because it was better that money would get to claimants than on legal expenses and their contribution facilitated a ‘pastoral action’; also anxious to act in solidarity with other cited congregations. Surviving Oblates would avoid trauma of litigious lawsuits

These congregations set out to support the poor, vulnerable and isolated. But to understand their origins I have summarised the mission of the order of Our Lady of Charity of the Good Shepherd.

Its mission of one of this congregation was to provide “shelter for girls and women of dissolute habits, who wish to do penance for their inequities and lead a truly Christian life. Not only voluntary penitents, but also those consigned by civil and parental authority are admitted. Many of these penitents desire to remain for life; they are admitted to take vows and form the class of ‘magdalens’ under the direction of Sisters of the Good Shepherd. Many of these magdalens frequently rise to an eminent degree of sanctity. Beside girls and women of this class, the order also admits children who have been secured from danger, before they have fallen or stained by serious crime. They are instructed i habits of industry and self-respect and in all the duties they owe to themselves and society. The penitents, magdalens and preservates form perfectly distinct classes, completely segregated from one another.”

This congregation founded Ruhama, in 1989 to intervene with prostitutes in Dublin prostitution. Their trustees and board of directors includes the Governor of Mountjoy Prison in Dublin.

Child Abuse Report, a chilling profile of violated trust

Almost every metropolitan newspaper across the world published a story on Thursday, May 21^st about the Report of the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse in Ireland.

The Commission was established on 23 May 2000 and heard evidence of childhood abuse from attendees of industrial schools, reformatories, orphanages, and a hospital or in a child’s own home since 1940. Industrial schools were established under law in 1868 Ireland to cater for neglected, orphaned or abandoned children.

Public awareness of extensive childhood abuse in these schools was heightened by a television documentary, States of Fear in 1999 that lead to a public apology in the Dáil (Parliament) by the then Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern TD. This coincided with the exposure of widespread clerical child sex abuse in Ireland, United States and elsewhere.

The types of abuse investigated included:

• Physical abuse - infliction of injury or failure to prevent injury
  
• Sexual abuse – use of a child for sexual gratification or arousal
  
• Neglect – failure to care properly
  
• Emotional abuse

Examples of abuse included, for example, being caned on bare buttocks, being invited to ‘search’ for a coin in the pant pocket of a cleric, being obliged to spend overnight in the open air, often during inclement weather, sharing a bed with an alcoholic nun, being stripped and beaten in front of other people and inflicting bruising and black eyes.

Approximately 170,000 children attended these institutions between 1936 and 1970. The issue of compensation was determined by a Residential Institutions Redress Board (RIRB) and a total of 14,584 applications were received by 15 December 2005.

The position in May 2009 is that RIRB has completed 13,190 cases and has made awards totalling €787.45 million and the average value of the 12,436 awards made to date has been €63,320. A total of 1,892 awards were for sums in excess of €100,000 and 27 were in the €200,000 - €300,000 range.

A total of €138.5 million was paid in legal costs to 817 firms of solicitors.

The Irish Government entered into a contractually binding agreement in 2002 with the 18 religious congregations implicated in the Report which capped their liability at €127 million. It was anticipated that this would represent a 50-50 burden share between the State and the religious congregations. But this has not been the case in practice and the religious congregations will not increase their contribution.

The publication of the Report was spurred debate and discussion about:

• The issue of compensation and burden sharing with many advocating a greater contribution by the religious congregations in the light of the evidence contained in the Report
  
• The violation of public trust and the future relationship of citizens with the religious congregations and their representative organization the Conference of Religious of Ireland (CORI)
  
• The appropriateness of a memorial to commemorate victims.

Response of Religious Congregations

There are 80 active religious congregations in Ireland and of these 18 are cited in the Child Abuse Report.
When this report was published last week it would have been interesting to discover the response of their representation, the Congregation of Religious of Ireland (CORI), especially from a justice perspective. But there has been no comment whatsoever.

The nation has, however, heard CORI, at its most passive, “is not aware of any plans to revisit the terms of the compensation deal concluded in 2002” . This has been reconfirmed on Monday, May 25th. The counterparty to this agreement, the Irish Government, advise that it is inviolable from a legal perspective, while other politicians seem content to exploit the revulsion of the electorate for the purpose of aggrandizing, grand-standing and posturing within days of a set of elections.

Three compelling issues arise as a consequence of this Report and the forensic detail contained therein:

1. The first and most obvious relates to the compensation of victims and on whom the burden for this falls. The timing of the compensation agreement reached 7 years ago was two years after the Commission was established on 23 May 2000 and 17 months before the resignation of Ms Justice Laffoy as Chairman of the Commissioners on 12 December 2003 on grounds of dissatisfaction with the level of government cooperation being given the Commission at that time.
   The evidence that is now in the public domain combined, with the very large number of victims whose claims has been accepted, put the matter of compensation and burden-sharing into a completely different context than that which prevailed in the summer of 2002 and this perspective was supported by Most Rev Diarmuid Martin, Archbishop of Dublin.
   
   This agreement maybe watertight and it may define the finite element of burden-sharing from a legal perspective. But it is not an agreement on faith, hope, charity or justice. It is an agreement that is essentially based on low peasant-cunning.
   
   The diminishing cohort of Irish taxpayers, at a time of chronic economic recession and whose own livelihoods are under constant threat, are to bear a burden for the criminality of your members’ which will absorb all of the customs, all of the capital gains tax and all of the capital acquisition tax revenue that that State will receive in 2009.
   
2. The second issue concerns the violation of public trust. Public trust is not something that is created from money, or by a photo-opportunity on the plinth of Leinster House with an ageing government minister and a soon to retire secretary-general of the Department of Education & Science, or over a glass of port, or cup of coffee in Buswells Hotel. It is certainly not a commodity that is a function of the amount paid in respect of victim compensation, however adequate or inadequate, the burden-sharing of that might be.
   
   Trust is precious. It is hard-earned but the pantheons’ of upon which it exists collapse to powder and rubble when the basis for it has been fatally undermined. The18 religious congregations concerned with these episodes of grotesque abuse have lost public confidence and respect. The genesis of the social and justice objectives that CORI seek to alleviate – homelessness, binge drinking, social isolation, destitution of body and spirit, can be attributed directly to the abuse cited in the Report which covers 170,000 poor, wretched, vulnerable minors, many of whom now have issue and lineage.
   
   This rupture of public trust means that the heirs, successors and lineal descendants of those who demanded that a child lick faeces off the boot, or was regularly raped and sodomised by a members’ of up to 18 religious congregations’ now have as much authenticity in the forum of public esteem as those of a ventriloquist representing the interests in Ireland, of the successors, issue and lineal descendants of Oliver Cromwell, Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler.
   
3. The third issue concerns whether a memorial of some sort is appropriate to commemorate the legacy of what has been revealed in the Report. I can think of no more appropriate memorial than the immediate disbandment of each of those congregations’ cited in the Report.
   
   If it can be successfully demonstrated that this would ignore the contribution of many fine contemporary individual members of a congregation, then perhaps alternative proposals might be put forward to capture whatever energy and remnants of integrity are worthy of perpetual continuity. But one thing is abundantly clear – the high minded ideals and mission of their founders’ have been diverted and embedded in the genitals and rectums of too many children for them to continue as the paragons of virtue which they deem themselves to be.

List of Cited Congregations

1. The Rosminian Institute of Charity
2. The Dominican Order
3. The Sisters of Mercy
4. Our Lady of Charity of the Good Shepherd
5. The Presentation Brothers
6. The Religious Sisters of Charity
7. The Christian Brothers
8. The Daughters of Charity of St Vincent de Paul
9. The Sisters of Our Lady of Charity of Refuge
10. The Brothers of Charity
11. The Daughters of the Heart of Mary
12. The De La Salle Brothers
13. The Sisters of St Clare
14. The Presentation Sisters
15. The Sisters of St Louis
16. The Hospitaller Order of St John of God
17. The Sisters of Nazareth
18. The Oblates of Mary Immaculate