The God Squad

While they are no longer seen on the wards, the sisters have not gone away, writes John Crown

Sunday June 07 2009 Sunday Independent

In the aftermath of the institutional abuse revelations, there have been calls both for a re-visitation of the original deal between the Government and the religious congregations (so lenient in its treatment of the orders, that there are suspicions that both sides of the negotiation were in fact being conducted on their behalf), and for an appropriate memorialisation of the sufferers.

Our then-Taoiseach Mr Ahern stated in a radio interview with Karen Coleman that critics of the arrangement were “having a hop” at the congregations, and that his motive at the time was to spare sufferers the trauma of cross examination. He also asked, perhaps somewhat rhetorically, which of the Foxrock or Merrion parishes (two of the most affluent in the country) should be auctioned first, in the event of further financial redress being sought.

It can only be a matter of conjecture as to whether abuse survivors would feel more victimised by cross examination, or by their persecutors escaping justice. Similarly, parish assets would not be at risk from renegotiation. Religious orders are not part of the diocesan structure, and historically have lived in uneasy co-existence with the bishops. Merrion Parish Church (incidentally, already entrusted by the Archdiocese to the stewardship of Opus Dei — an organisation whose members have a shameful track record of abuse denial) would not be vulnerable to settlement claims.

Are the orders destitute? Had they not already divested themselves of many of their prize real estate holdings — schools and hospitals — in response to dwindling vocations?

The Sisters of Charity and Mercy, two of the congregations that figured in the abuse report, were the founders of St Vincent’s and the Mater hospitals respectively, two of our most prominent university hospitals, institutions that are entirely State-funded. Until recently the orders were the unambiguous owners and rulers of these institutions, which are now owned by limited liability trusts. When the sisters, among whose number were some of the kindest individual health professionals that I have encountered, left the wards and management positions of the hospitals, there was not, in truth, a noticeable decline in the quality of the care. A cadre of fine lay sisters and unit nursing managers emerged.

While they are no longer seen on the wards, the sisters, haven’t gone away, you know.

In the case of St Vincent’s, they are the sole shareholders, and appoint the board, which according to their website, “is responsible to the shareholders of the company which are the Sisters of Charity. The board as part of its responsibility develops the hospital and its services in accordance with the principles and ethics of the Congregation of the Religious Sisters of Charity”.

Quoting the Mater website, “the majority of members of the parent company are Sisters of Mercy and remaining members represent the Catholic Archdiocese of Dublin, the Catholic Nurses Guild of Ireland, the Society of St Vincent de Paul and the medical consultants of the Mater Misericordiae University Hospital and the Children’s Hospital Temple Street”.

In other words, the boards of these State-funded institutions, answer to, and defend the interests of the same organisations which, at corporate level, showed themselves so unworthy of the public trust in the abuse cases.

There is no area where transparency and accountability are more important than in our public hospitals.

While not denying the spirit of Christian charity which informed the foundation of these institutions, and which inspired very many very kind individual nuns who worked in them, have the orders, in their response to the abuse cases, demonstrated a corporate commitment to transparency and accountability? I believe not.

Furthermore, was the transfer of these hospitals to limited liability companies at about the same time that it emerged their owners might have had cases to answer, and civil liability to meet, in respect of institutional abuse, a coincidence?

Was it done with the needs of abuse victims in mind?

What is certain is that the orders have it within their gift to donate these hospitals to the State which funds them as partial compensation to the taxpayer for our redress obligations. As a trenchant critic of the current health system, and in particular of the HSE structure, I would be loathe to suggest that the HSE, an entity which I consider to be an irreformable bureaucratic behemoth, should be the recipient. Rather the hospitals could be administered in the public good, perhaps by a medical school.

In addition, could not one of these institutions be renamed to provide a suitable memorial to the victims of institutional abuse, and a constant reproach to abuse deniers? Would this not be a more fitting monument to the sufferers than a plaque in St Stephen’s Green?

There should be a quid pro quo from an equally culpable State.

The same class-driven corporatist paternalism that allowed systematic residential abuse to develop and to go unchecked also informs our hospital services.

Restitution should include a commitment to reform the health system.

Professor John Crown is a consultant oncologist