An arabesque is not an apology: the hierarchy cavorts in denial.

"I AM SORRY." THESE WORDS, LIKE "I love you," have the power to transform our lives. These are words we long to hear. We are always ready for them, eager to be persuaded by the new possibilities that they offer. But the words, though essential to the miracle of change, only work their magic when we know we are hearing the truth. When they are false, the last case is worse than the first. Far better that the words were never spoken. A false apology, like a careless declaration of love, is an act of abuse.

The leaders of the Catholic church in Ireland, like their peers in other parts of the world, are on the rack of clerical sexual abuse. What is tortuous about this situation is that the victims find it nearly impossible to heal in the face of continuing prevarication, while simultaneously being faced with the hierarchy's attempts to avoid their complicity with the original sin.

One way to secure a solution to these problems is for our cardinals and bishops to expand their moral horizons by turning to an ethic of care and for each one, individually, to offer to the victims what I describe as a care-tiff apology. The primary, constituent element of such an apology is the truthful statement of what they did or failed to do. (1) The Catholic hierarchy is going to find itself on its knees before this scandal is over. But, better they fall to them of their own accord in the search for forgiveness than that they be brought down in a struggle to deny responsibility.

APOLOGY AS COVER-UP

An apology that does not contain the whole truth always exacerbates the problem. For example, within the psychotherapeutic conversation, when one of the participants says, "I am sorry that you are hurting," or, in passive voice, "I am sorry that it happened," it is heard as refusing to assume responsibility for what has been done. There is no possibility for reconciliation or healing to take place because these statements do not exhibit a willingness to relinquish control of the situation and acknowledge failure, in effect to make oneself vulnerable. It is of the essence of an apology to say, "I am sorry that I did it."

In this particular situation, we know two things. One, abuse happened in almost unbelievable numbers, and over at least a half a century. (2) Two, the church authorities did all that they could to prevent this becoming public knowledge. The first they have been forced to admit almost by default. The massive numbers of victims coming forward has forced acknowledgment. To date they have not admitted the second. This "policy" of evasion has been, and continues to be, practiced at the highest levels in our church. In contra-distinction to the acts of abuse which were carried out by a small minority of the clerical population, the subsequent, intentional cover-up, at the level of the episcopacy, may well be a blanket 100%. As long as the hierarchy persists in telling only half the truth, apologizing for only half the problem, then an apology which purports to be comprehensive becomes a cover-up of the cover-up. The attempted solution has generated a new form of abuse.

At this point, I believe that the victims are in danger of being victimized once more, this time by a duplicitous process. On the one hand, the church authorities in Ireland claim that we must seek "truth and justice for all concerned." So, for example, in June 2002, the archbishop of Armagh, Scan Brady, stated that, "Only when we establish the truth, acknowledge our failures, ask pardon for the wrong that has been done ... can we hope to receive forgiveness." Four months later, following the Prime Time television program, "Cardinal Secrets," the archbishop of Dublin, Cardinal Desmond Connell, stated, "Establishing the truth as unambiguously and objectively as possible is the essential first step in moving beyond this shameful issue.... Only when the truth has been established can the requirements of justice and reconciliation be met." While many commentators have seen these apologies from these bishops and others around the world as sincere and adequate, I believe that they have confused and angered victims and compounded the scandal internationally for the institution.

EXPLANATIONS DO NOT EXCUSE

When Archbishop Sean Brady talks about seeking forgiveness for "our failures," he does not admit that the church did anything morally (or maybe even criminally) wrong, he means that they simply labored under a lack of knowledge. The word "failure" is used by him, and many others, in tandem with a series of excuses: "we didn't know about the rate of recidivism; we felt obliged to respect the abuser's right to confidentiality; we are sorry that we didn't act quickly enough."

That these excuses are flawed is a case already argued by the Irish 7hnes reporter, Fintan O'Toole. In "Ruination of Lives, Ruination of Church," (3) O'Toole harks back to the notorious case of Brendan Smyth, an Irish priest who was first "relocated" to America in 1965 and subsequently imprisoned in Ireland. He reminds us of the report, "The Problem of Sexual Molestation by Roman Catholic Clergy," prepared at the request of the US bishops, and published in the National Catholic Reporter in 1985. O'Toole argues that for at least twenty years the Irish hierarchy had been well informed about the problems associated with abuse and pedophilia.

With respect to the issue of confidentiality, O'Toole cites the work of the former bishop of Limerick, Jeremiah Newman, who in turn relied upon Catholic theologian Bernard Haring, to argue that where there is a danger to the public (in this case AIDS) the requirements of confidentiality must be set aside: "Every patient must be aware that when he reveals his condition to a physician, the doctor can never be a willing accomplice to crime by unjustified silence." While most would disagree with the notion that we should deny confidentiality to people with AIDS, the hierarchy will call upon the principle of confidentiality to protect itself or one of its priests, even when there is evidence of danger to the public, yet insist that such protection is not available to people with AIDS.

If the bishops are sorry that they failed to act quickly enough to protect vulnerable children, this explanation has to be read in light of the fact that for the past fifteen years they have been protecting their assets. Only recently, the Irish Bishops' Conference admitted that insurance had initially been taken out in 1987 to cover liabilities arising from child sexual abuse, and they also admitted that further policies had been subsequently negotiated. (4) Catholics can be understandably angry when their religious leaders plead ignorance of a situation while insuring themselves against that very risk.

Further, even if these excuses were valid, the cover-up still took place. What "truth" and whose "justice" are we talking about here?

ACCOUNTABILITY AND RESPONSIBILITY

The problems of accountability and personal responsibility are essential to the resolution of this issue. Firstly, accountability seems to be a slippery concept within the structures of the Catholic church. It is said that every diocese is an independent entity, though not a legal one. Yet, at the same time, there seems to be a tendency for them to make representative apologies on behalf of persons for whom they claim they cannot otherwise speak. When they do speak, they place themselves at an impersonal distance by reference to the collective, the constant use of the pronouns "we" and "our" that undermines the essence of the apology. For if everyone is equally responsible then no one is responsible.

Cardinal Connell of Dublin provides two recent examples of the way in which the ground shifts as his needs require. In the case against Father Noel Reynolds, the cardinal offered the defense that as he was not in office when the offences occurred, he has no legal responsibility for them or for those of any of his predecessors. Have we not always been taught that it is the office and not the person that counts in terms of the Apostolic Succession? But perhaps the most difficult reply from the cardinal is his argument that as the wrongs alleged against Father Reynolds were criminal, and as such not part of his duties, the plaintiffs are entitled to no compensation from him or the diocese. Yet, in 1999, when defending his decision to move Reynolds to the National Rehabilitation Institute, where children were patients, he described the priest's behavior not as criminal but as merely "inappropriate."

Equally as problematic are attempts to apologize that are not sufficiently proximate to demonstrate accountability and personal responsibility. Disembodied references to "the wrong that has been done" or "the terrible betrayal" are at best ineffectual, and at worst exacerbate the problem. But this wrong or betrayal is always a reference to the act of sexual abuse itself and not to the policy of cover-up. An apology 'at arms length' does not indicate to the victim that their suffering has been understood or that the person apologizing is expressing guilt and contrition for his own behavior.

For example, after 18 years Mervyn Rundle finally received an "apology," read into the court record at the time of settlement, from Cardinal Connell. The cardinal did not take personal responsibility either for his part in the cover-up, or for his implementation of church policy, or for the process of intimidation that is legal prevarication. He cannot therefore be surprised to read Rundle's statement: "I am not sure how long it will take me to forgive them for taking 18 years and numerous court appearances.... It was 18 years ago that my father took me by the hand to the bishop's place in Dublin; I was a small boy when Monsignor Alex Stenson requested to speak to me alone: 'Stop your lies, stop telling your lies.' That is when this nightmare got worse.... When my solicitor got them [the church files], there it was in black and white--they knew all about the priest, they knew he was at children before he ever came near Donney-carney and me. And even then they still fought us, even though they had known this all along. It's beyond belief really what they're prepared to do. They made me go through seven years of fighting to get to this point. They could have saved me all that. They fought us every inch of the way." (5) I believe that this response is the result of relying on the principle of damage limitation instead of the truth.

JUSTICE IS NOT ENOUGH

The enjoyment or enforcement of our public, legal rights has always been less demanding and extensive than our private obligations. We have traditionally understood that justice can only be served by means of the application of universal principles and the protection of universal rights. Within such a conceptual framework, universality will be the determining criterion and care of the individual, even though relevant, will be considered of secondary importance. Within the system of common law, the legal duty of care is negative in its orientation rather than positive; we are obliged to refrain from harming our neighbors but we are not obliged to benefit them, or to improve their existing condition. It sets a moral minimum as the standard for behavior required of us. To appeal solely to an ethic of justice is a response that privileges the rational and the disembodied at the expense of the emotional and the situated. Although justice is all essential component of both public and private relationships, it is only an ethic of care that requites that we become sufficiently attentive to another's needs. It is caring for and about the other which expands our moral horizon, enabling us to make the best possible moral and positive response.

A CARE-FUL APOLOGY

For the victims to heal they need not only justice but also care. (6) The central question for an ethic of care is not, "What, if anything, do I owe to others?" but rather, "How can I best meet my caring responsibility?" Not "How little can I get away with?" but "How much can I give?"

Care is Attentive

We begin the process of caring about someone when we are attentive to their needs. Implicit in the ethical posture of being attentive to the needs of others is the necessity to temporarily suspend our own concerns. Therefore, firstly, the Catholic church must shift its gaze towards the other; it must stop saying that this is "a wake-up call" or a necessary humiliation," or time now to "put our own house in order," or even as the pope has suggested, that "this time of trial will bring purification to the whole Catholic community." Secondly, its representatives will also have to stop rushing the conversation forward to talk about preventative measures for the future, much as they are needed, and stay with the victims in the present. In the final analysis, promises of better behavior in the furore can never be convincing unless predicated on credible contrition.

When we focus only on our own goals, we are likely to attend to what we have decided is appropriate for the other to receive. Or worse, we focus only on what we are willing to give. Or worse still, we concentrate on how to avoid giving anything. The victims tell us repeatedly that they do not want money as much as understanding, that they do not want to shame the institution (they did not go to police first) but equally, they will no longer he invisible, given money and told to go away and be silent. They are concerned with other possible victims and it is they who have always tried to lead an unwilling hierarchy towards a pro active stance in the area of future protection.

Care is Willing to be Responsible

Once our attentive stance has discerned what each victim needs, we are drawn immediately into a discussion of the nature of our responsibility to them. To really take care of someone requires that we move beyond responsibility as a final obligation to a more complete, more personally caring response. If we operate solely out of an ethic of justice, we will confine ourselves to an assessment of the victim's rights and our corresponding legal duty.

Therefore, to apply the ideas that I have outlined above, each individual bishop must say, without equivocation, "I am sorry, for the pain that I have inflicted on you." It is necessary to acknowledge and spell out the specific truth of his behavior for which he alone is responsible. He needs to say in effect, "I am sorry because I "know that I am the person who did the wrong thing. I took the wrong option, covered up, allowed it to happen again, and again, and then again, every time I knowingly moved an abuser or at least did nothing to change our policy of reassignment from one parish or diocese or country to another." At this point, the apology is as complete as the bishop can make it. The process of healing is well begun and solidly founded because a specific person has taken responsibility for what he did to one particular victim.

Care is Active

Care demands more than the awareness of the victim's needs or the willingness to assume legal responsibility, for them. Care-giving requires making contact, the actual giving of care. According to Bishop Eamon Walsh of Ferns, the church has cared for the abusing priest more than for the victims. (7) However, now that he has started to visit the homes of those abused, he is in a position to understand how truly harrowing are the actions that cause you to lose your childhood as a result of repeated rape; to be told that you are lying; to be fought all the way, year after year, through the legal system, to insist on your truth; and then only to have a lawyer read a carefully worded apology. Visiting the victims, Bishop Walsh has begun to appreciate the frustration of being repeatedly stonewalled by an institution that refused to listen, or having listened, disbelieved. By making these visits, the anger of the people of the Diocese of Ferns has begun to lessen.

Care Requires Feedback

In the final phase of the caring process, a response is required from the victim, the care receiver. It is only by contact with the person receiving care that we can determine whether or not their needs have actually been met. If our perception of what is needed is wrong, then we have a problem; if our perception of what is needed is correct hut the means we choose to meet that need are wrong, then we have another problem. It is only the care receiver who can tell us if the care has been appropriate and adequate. If we want the apology, to produce healing instead of more anger and frustration and hurt, then we have to be prepared to ask them. Recently, the bishop of Providence, Rhode Island, Robert Mulvee, expressed the hope that a financial settlement made to 32 men and women "will be helpful to the victims of abuse and bring them in some way closer to closure and reconciliation with their God, their church, their families and themselves." (8)

I would suggest that Bishop Mulvee needs to follow up and find out--with each of the 32. What good will the financial settlement have done him, the institution he loves, the victims and their financials if he discovers that they still feel angry, and uncared for because they had to fight every, step of the way to get this compensation. If Mulvee, or any bishop, does not make these journeys, he has confined his moral response to the limits of justice. He has "negotiated" a final settlement to discharge the legal limits of his responsibility to these people and thereby asserts his presumed entitlement to legal and moral "closure." Alternatively, if he is willing to care for these people, to expand his moral response beyond the requirements of justice to the outer limits of care, he will see this financial payment not as the end of his responsibility, not as closure for him, but only as a beginning of a process of attentive, responsible, ongoing care giving.

GIVING THE CHURCH BACK TO THE PEOPLE

If an adversarial action, born out of an ethic of justice, breeds an adversarial response then perhaps we have reason to believe that a caring response will give the church back to the people and allow the people to come back to the church.

We have all failed to inform ourselves sufficiently about something that is going on in our community with which we would much rather not have to contend. We may be justifiably angry with the authorities that covered up the abuse even as we acknowledge that we have never made any effort to find out just how many children sleep rough on the streets every night. However, now that victims are coming forward in their hundreds to seek compensation, the tactics of avoidance and prevarication will no longer suffice. After the award of 300,000 [euro] plus costs to Mervyn Rundle in January 2003, the hierarchy said it had learned much. However, the apologies that have been given to date, coupled with more recent attempts to avoid legal responsibility, will not pull the church back from the brink. Every apology must contain within it the whole truth and the admission of personal responsibility either for abuse, or cover-up, or failure to call the system for its policy of cover-up. If it does not contain the full truth then it is not credible, and if it cannot be believed then it does not contain within it the gift of healing. It is no more than a lateral arabesque, a movement designed to charm, to diffuse, to please the eye but one that holds no substance.

NOTES

(1) Earlier formats for discussions such as this one were known in South America and South Africa as Truth and Reconciliation Commissions.

(2) The report, "Sexual Abuse and Violence in Ireland," shows that only 9% of survivors of sexual violence are prepared to come forward and report.

(3) Fintan O'Toole, "Ruination of Lives, Ruination of Church," Irish Times, October 19, 2002.

(4) Irish Times, Editorial, February 8, 2003.

(5) Patsy McGarry, "'The Rundle Settlement'--Nightmare of eighteen years 'ends here today'," Irish Times, January 29, 2003.

(6) For this insight, and for many of the comments that follow, I am indebted to the work of Joan Tronto. See especially her Moral Boundaries: A Political Argument for an Ethic of Care (London: Routledge, 1994).

(7) Liam Reid, "Acknowledgment is just the beginning," Sunday Tribune, January 26, 2003.

(8) BBC News Online, "US church agrees child abuse pay-out," September 10, 2002.

GAIL GROSSMAN FREYNE, LL.B., PH.D., is a psychotherapist and mediator in private practice and a founding member of the Family Therapy and Counselling Centre, Ranelagh, Dublin, Ireland.