Carol Sarler may be correct to argue, as she does in this week's edition of the magazine, that we have an unhealthy fascination with sex crimes that is both prurient and puritanical. But I'd suggest that, whatever the merits of her wider argument, she doesn't know very much about Ireland:
You have to love that "probably correctly", as though the victims are somehow guilty of complaining too loudly. How indecent of them! Don't these people realise that they should just get over it? No use crying over spilt milk and all that.In Ireland, some 2,000 adults who gave evidence of assault at the hands of Roman Catholic priests and nuns are, probably correctly, spitting tacks. The inquiry into their treatment when in children’s institutions has ruled that, although they did indeed suffer, no charges may be brought, no names shamed and, for what it’s worth, no bank balances swollen by damages sucked from the Vatican’s already depleted coffers. The decision might not seem just; on the other hand, it was all a very long time ago — so why, do we think, in recent weeks has this been one of the few stories to knock duck islands off their moats at the top of the news?The clue, I suggest, is not that we all suddenly feel a burning need to sympathise with the suffering victims, but that sex was involved. So all anyone had to do was pick on that, splash it big, and they were on to a winner: even the BBC’s report put ‘sexual abuse’ into its opening sentence, leaving systematic, ritual beatings down at the dull end of its tale...
Further, when you listen to the grievances pouring from the Irish victims (which, no matter how justified it might be, often ends with a catalogue of lifelong disasters, attributable to kiddie-fiddling)... it is as if personal responsibility did not exist.
Not for a moment do I suggest that we lighten up on the criminals. Catch the buggers; throw away the key. But we could lighten up on the victims. To make less of what happened to them might well involve sacrificing our own prurient interest in any crime that involves genitalia. It might, nevertheless, be better for all of us if we did.
Firstly, not all of the abuse catalogued in the Ryan Commission's exhaustive and exhausting 2,500 page report took place "a very long time ago". At least some of it (such as at Goldenbridge) continued into the 1980s. Secondly, the justified anger felt in Ireland is not merely a response to the abuse itself, nor even to the fact that no criminal charges are to be brought. It is, rather, an attempt to, first, comprehend and, second, account for the actions of the Irish State itself. In other words, the reckoning is not merely with the Catholic Church and the religious orders but with Ireland and Irishness itself. How could this have happened? How could it have been permitted to happen? What sort of people are we?
And while Sarler may be correct to suppose that individual crimes are fodder for sensationalist press coverage, the scale of the horrors perpetrated upon more than 170,000 Irish children is criminality of a different, institutionalised, state-sponsored magnitude. The wickedness - known of for years but only now exposed in its full, chilling horror - is an indictment of the state such as to invite comparisons with any number of grim dictatorial regimes across the planet. The abuses - physical, sexual, mental - detailed in the Ryan report were not aberrations, they were routine. In that sense, then, there's some justice in the fact that the state, not the church, will pick up the bill even if it also remains scandalous that the religious orders have been able to negotiate what amounts to an amnesty.
This too is a reminder that those tempted to romanticise de Valera's Ireland are peddling terrible nonsense. That Ireland was a grim place, dependent upon emigration for its survival and, as now see, actively comlict in the torture and, yes, enslavement of thousands of its weakest, most vulnerable children.
Good riddance to it. The tragedy is that it lasted so long.
For more, see Fintan O'Toole here and here plus this post by Sean Coleman at Norm's place. Also this transcript of this clip from Questions & Answers (the Irish version of Question Time) and then see if you agree with Sarler that the victims should "move on":
UPDATE: Via Suffering World, I see that Damian Thompson has an interesting, perhaps even provocative, post arguing that "The latest abuse scandal is as Irish as it is Catholic". There's certainly something to that, even if I would suggest that it was simply "Irish-Catholic". Nevertheless, I can quite appreciate why, from a Catholic perspective, this is an important distinction. But in Ireland no such distinction applied: Ireland was Catholic and, in many ways, Catholicism was Ireland. That was rather the point. I also understand why Catholics would be exercised by this question; I'm more interested in the Irishness of it than the catholicism.
Filed under: Catholic Church (18 more articles) , Ireland (194 more articles)
Blogs: Martin Bright | Susan Hill | Melanie Phillips | Coffee House | Faith Based
Actions: Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (9)
Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit
Advertisement
1 How Britain is using spin to con the bond markets - Miles Huddleston
2 Will Greece run out of German sympathy? - James Forsyth
3 Boris keeps on charming his party - James Forsyth
4 Brooks charges mean more trouble for Cameron - James Forsyth
Andrew Sullivan
Ben Smith
Charles Crawford
Chris Dillow
Claudia Massie
Dan Drezner
Daniel Larison
Dave Weigel
Ezra Klein
French Politics
Global Guerrilas (John Robb)
Henry Porter
James Fallows
Julian Sanchez
Kerry Howley
Kevin Drum
League of Ordinary Gentlemen
Marc Ambinder
Matt Zeitlin
Matthew Yglesias
Megan McArdle
More than Mind Games
Mr Eugenides
Norm Geras
Our Kingdom
Outside the Beltway
Radley Balko
Reason: Hit&Run
Rod Dreher
Samizdata
Scottish Unionist
SNP Tactical Voting
The American Scene
The Plank
Tim Worstall
Toby Harnden
Will Wilkinson
Charlotte Gore
Iain Martin
Hopi Sen
Liberal Vision
Left Back in the Changing Room
1,700 Unusual Christmas Presents Request Catalogue 01935 815 195 Quote SPEC10 for 10% discount www.presentfinder.co.uk
Pimilco based Florist with online ordering Web: www.olivebranch.net Tel: 020 7630 1868 Fax: 020 7233 8844
62 Shore Road, Warsash, Southampton, SO31 9FT Telephone: 01489 578867 Web site: www.ruffs.co.uk
Apollo Magazine | Corporate | Advertising | Privacy | Terms
Spectator, 22 Old Queen Street, London, SW1H 9HP
All Articles and Content Copyright ©2012 by The Spectator | All Rights Reserved
Forlornehope
May 28th, 2009 6:31pm Report this commentApart from anything else this should finally nail the myth that the IRA were ever more than a bunch of thugs. This is what happens when those kind of people get control of a country.
Craig Strachan
May 28th, 2009 7:23pm Report this commentHome Rule WAS Rome rule, as it turns out.
Seanachie
May 29th, 2009 2:00am Report this commentHome Rule needn't have been Rome Rule and wouldn't have been if the Cosgrave government (and later de Valera's government) had any backbone. But to use an Ulster Unionist slogan is mischievous to say the least as the UUP-run statelet of the same period was no paragon of decency or freedom. At the risk of sounding crass and nihilistic in the extreme, perhaps we Irish, both Green and Orange got the regimes we deserved...
Seanachie
May 29th, 2009 2:07am Report this comment@Forlonehope I don't know where you've derived your historical knowledge but I suspect it's from the bog-standard British understanding of Irish history. The Catholic Church was, for better or worse, fiercely opposed to Irish Republicanism from Fenianism. From your attempt to conflate the Catholic Church and the IRA (neither of which I have much time for, by the way), I can only deduce you have a problem with Catholics. Charming...
campbell
May 29th, 2009 3:14pm Report this commentI think anyone who uses instances of institionlised child abuse to make crude political jibes really needs see about getting a moral compass installed; they obviously lack one.
And yes, Forlornehope and Craig Strachan I mean YOU.
Craig Strachan
May 29th, 2009 6:25pm Report this commentSeannachie: "perhaps we Irish, both Green and Orange got the regimes we deserved"
Yes, it would have been much better for the Irish people if the whole island had remained unpartioned and within the Union.
Craig Strachan
May 29th, 2009 11:37pm Report this comment@campbell - When Fintan O'Toole uses the occasion of the publication of this report to make a critique of the role of the Roman Catholic church in the southern Irish state, is he engaging in a crude political jibe?
Seanachie
May 30th, 2009 4:09am Report this comment@CraigStrachan If the Irish were British or were ever particularly happy with the laughably-monikered "Union" (which only existed thanks to a jamboree of bribery and coercion of the sort that was commonplace in post-1789 British politics) I might be inclined to agree with you. The reality however tells that the post-Cardinal Cullen Irish Catholic Church was a keen supporter of the British Empire and condemned all attempts of the Irish to rightly rid themselves of its yoke. The abuse would have happened under British rule as readily as it did under the rule of the Irish. I'm not a knee-jerk Anglophobe Irish nationalist but your suggestion of what's good for the Irish is very reminiscent of those nostalgists for apartheid who blame all the ills of modern South Africa on the decline of white rule. Though I doubt you'd fail to be flattered by the comparison...
Craig Strachan
May 30th, 2009 3:17pm Report this comment@Seanachie: Not only were the Irish British, a good proportion of them still are - and not just in the North. Somewhere well in excess of ten per cent of the population in the South continue to hold and routinely renew British passports. And they can't all be Protestant nostalgists. So an Irish identity does not exclude a complementary British identity, even in the Republic today.
It is as possible to be Irish and British as it is to be, say, Scottish and British.
Back to top