Physical and Child Sexual Abuse in Ireland was endemic between 1940 and the late 1970s
July 27, 2009: A report released May 20 by the Irish State Commission of Inquiry reveals child sexual abuse was rampant in Ireland
By MICHELE BETTI | b&f opinions July 27, 2009
The Irish government established an independent commission in 2000 to hear evidence from anyone alleged to have suffered child abuse at institutions since 1940. These institutions, funded by the state, but often run by Catholic religious orders, included schools, orphanages, hospitals, children’s homes or any other institutions where children were in the care of non-family members.
As you read excerpts from the report below you will see ten similarities that often occur in child sexual abuse cases today. They include:
- When confronted with evidence of sexual abuse, the response of the religious authorities was to transfer the offender to another location where, in many instances, he was free to abuse again.
- Abusers were moved, but nothing was done about the harm done to the child.
- Authoritarian management systems prevented disclosures by staff and served to perpetuate abuse.
- Lack of transparency in how the matter of sexual abuse was dealt with between the Congregations, dioceses and the Department.
- Men with histories of sexual abuse when they were members of religious Orders continued their teaching careers as lay teachers in State schools.
- The Department of Education dealt inadequately with complaints about sexual abuse.
These complaints were generally dismissed or ignored.
- A full investigation of the extent of the abuse should have been carried out in all cases. All such complaints should have been directed to the Gardaı´ (police) for investigation.
- The Department neglected to advise parents and complainants appropriately of the limitations of their role in respect of these complaints.
- The Irish Christian Brothers were trying to prevent publication of the names of those accused, whether they were alive or dead. The Christian Brothers ran most of the institutions that cared for young boys and male teenagers.
- In 2004, the commission agreed not to name names in its final report.
According to the Commission Report 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, sexual abuse was not systemic in girls’ schools.
The schools investigated revealed a substantial level of sexual abuse of boys in care that extended over a range from improper touching and fondling to rape with violence. Perpetrators of abuse were able to operate undetected for long periods at the core of institutions.
The Commission Report stated in its Executive Summary, “This Report should give rise to debate and reflection. Although institutional care belongs to a different era, many of the lessons to be learned from what happened have contemporary applications for the protection of vulnerable people in our society.”
Opening The Window To Expose Sexual Abusers
The contemporary application for today is a statutory “window,” which effectively allows all survivors of childhood sexual abuse to pursue their claims against their perpetrators and the institutions who protected them. In the California Clergy Cases, literally thousands of pedophiles and the institutions that covered up the abuse were revealed. Survivors got a chance to name their victims and the public learned who was endangering — and has endangered — their children.
Protecting The Institution vs The Victims Perpetration of Abuse
Cases of sexual abuse were managed with a view to minimizing the risk of public disclosure and consequent damage to the institution and the Congregation. This policy resulted in the protection of the perpetrator. When lay people were discovered to have sexually abused, they were generally reported to the Gardaı´ (police). When a member of a Congregation was found to be abusing, it was dealt with internally and was not reported to the Gardaı´.
The damage to the children affected and the danger to others were disregarded. The difference in treatment of lay and religious abusers points to an awareness on the part of Congregational authorities of the seriousness of the offense, yet there was a reluctance to confront religious who offended in this way.
The desire to protect the reputation of the Congregation and institution was paramount. Congregations asserted that knowledge of sexual abuse was not available in society at the time and that it was seen as a moral failing on the part of the Brother or priest. This assertion, however, ignores the fact that sexual abuse of children was a criminal offense.
The recidivist nature of sexual abuse was known to religious authorities.
The documents revealed that sexual abusers were often long-term offenders who repeatedly abused children wherever they were working. Contrary to the Congregations’ claims that the recidivist nature of sexual offending was not understood, it is clear from the documented cases that they were aware of the propensity for abusers to re-abuse.
The risk, however, was seen by the Congregations in terms of the potential for scandal and bad publicity should the abuse be disclosed. The danger to children was not taken into account.
When confronted with evidence of sexual abuse, the response of the religious authorities was to transfer the offender to another location where, in many instances, he was free to abuse again. Permitting an offender to obtain dispensation from vows often enabled him to continue working as a lay teacher.
Men who were discovered to be sexual abusers were allowed to take dispensation rather than incur the opprobrium of dismissal from the Order. There was evidence that such men took up teaching positions sometimes within days of receiving dispensations because of serious allegations or admissions of sexual abuse. The safety of children in general was not a consideration.
Sexual abuse was known to religious authorities to be a persistent problem in male religious organizations throughout the relevant period. Nevertheless, each instance of sexual abuse was treated in isolation and in secrecy by the authorities and there was no attempt to address the underlying systemic nature of the problem.
There were no protocols or guidelines put in place that would have protected children from predatory behavior.
The management did not listen to or believe children when they complained of the activities of some of the men who had responsibility for their care. At best, the abusers were moved, but nothing was done about the harm done to the child. At worst, the child was blamed and seen as corrupted by the sexual activity, and was punished severely.
In the exceptional circumstances where opportunities for disclosing abuse arose, the number of sexual abusers identified increased significantly. For a brief period in the 1940s, boys felt able to speak about sexual abuse in confidence at a sodality that met in one school. Brothers were identified by the boys as sexual abusers and were removed as a result. The sodality was discontinued.
In another school, one Brother embarked on a campaign to uncover sexual activity in the school and identified a number of religious who were sexual abusers. This indicated that the level of sexual abuse in boys’ institutions was much higher than was revealed by the records or could be discovered by this investigation. Authoritarian management systems prevented disclosures by staff and served to perpetuate abuse.
Disbelief And Denial
The Congregational authorities did not listen to or believe people who complained of sexual abuse that occurred in the past, notwithstanding the extensive evidence that emerged from Gardaı´ investigations, criminal convictions and witness accounts.
Some Congregations remained defensive and disbelieving of much of the evidence heard by the Investigation Committee in respect of sexual abuse in institutions, even in cases where men had been convicted in court and admitted to such behaviour at the hearings.
In general, male religious Congregations were not prepared to accept their responsibility for the sexual abuse that their members perpetrated. Congregational loyalty enjoyed priority over other considerations including safety and protection of children.
Older boys sexually abused younger boys and the system did not offer protection from bullying of this kind. There was evidence that boys who were victims of sexual abuse were physically punished as severely as the perpetrator when the abuse was reported or discovered. Inevitably, boys learned to suffer in silence rather than report the abuse and face punishment.
Girls Were Treated Differently
Sexual abuse of girls was generally taken seriously by the Sisters in charge and lay staff were dismissed when their activities were discovered. However, nuns’ attitudes 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.
Girls who were abused reported that it happened most often when they were sent to host families for weekend, work or holiday placements. They did not feel able to report abusive behaviour to the Sisters in charge of the schools for fear of disbelief and punishment if they did.
A Culture of Silence And Inadequate Handling of Sexual Abuse Reports
Sexual abuse by members of religious Orders was seldom brought to the attention of the
Department of Education by religious authorities because of a culture of silence about the issue. When religious staff abused, the matter tended to be dealt with using internal disciplinary procedures and Canon Law. The Gardaı´ were not informed.
On the rare occasions when the Department was informed, it colluded in the silence. There was a lack of transparency in how the matter of sexual abuse was dealt with between the Congregations, dioceses and the Department.
Men with histories of sexual abuse when they were members of religious Orders continued their teaching careers as lay teachers in State schools.
The Department of Education dealt inadequately with complaints about sexual abuse.
These complaints were generally dismissed or ignored. A full investigation of the extent of the abuse should have been carried out in all cases. All such complaints should have been directed to the Gardai for investigation.
The Department, however, gave the impression that it had a function in relation to investigating allegations of abuse, but actually failed to do so and delayed the involvement of the proper authority. The Department neglected to advise parents and complainants appropriately of the limitations of their role in respect of these complaints.
Irish Commission Meets Resistance Of Irish Christian Brothers
The Irish Commission complained that the Irish Christian Brothers were trying to censor the commission’s work by launching a court case attempting to prevent publication of the names of those accused, whether they were alive or dead. The Christian Brothers ran most of the institutions that cared for young boys and male teenagers. In 2004, the commission agreed not to name names in its final report.
During the period examined, more than 25,000 children were in the care of these institutions. More than 3,100 people testified before the commission over the years and more than 800 priests, brothers, sisters and laypeople were implicated as abusers.
The 2,600-page report said sexual abuse was reported by approximately half of all those who testified before a confidential committee of the independent commission.
The report said school officials were alerted in advance to state inspections, so government officials did not get an accurate picture of conditions.
“Window” legislation allows for the widespread dissemination and identification of thousands of child predators.
The discovery and publication of hidden documents is crucial in any child sexual abuse case. Children are protected and predators are identified. We must learn the lessons of the past and apply those to the situations of today and support legislation that allows for the protection of vulnerable people in our society.
To see an executive summary of the report go to http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/20_05_09_abuse.pdf
Copyright 2009, b&f opinions.
