THE VATICAN AND THE BABIES

THE VATICAN AND THE BABIES Now that the Papal visit is over and Pope Francis has returned safely to Rome, it is possible to reflect on the positive and the not so positive aspects of the visit. On the plus and very sunny side of the story was the huge, spontaneous and rapturous welcome which Francis received from ordinary people, small children and their parents who turned out in great numbers to welcome him wherever he went. On the debit side was the very grudging and unbecoming performance of both the Head of Government and the Minister for Children, who frequently did their level best to spark off a diplomatic incident. Leo quite lost the run of himself. His Government had extended the invitation to the Pope to visit Ireland. It was his job to formally welcome the Pontiff, and no more than that. Instead he adopted tactics and an attitude that would not have been out of place had he been dealing with a heckler or a boot-boy at his annual Party Conference. Apart from ignoring even the most basic rudiments of good manners which protocol dictates, Leo’s speech was a serious cultural black spot or religious “black-hole”. Leo showed once more that he has no familiarity whatever with Ireland’s ancient culture or spiritual tradition. As welcomes in Irish go “A hundred thousand welcomes” is strictly tourist office stuff! Given the exceptionally distinguished Christian nature of the person he was welcoming and given Ireland’s own very considerable contribution to the Church’s Christian heritage and mission, it would not have been out of place for Leo to refer to The confessions of Saint Patrick, the world-famous illuminated manuscript of the Gospels on display at Trinity College or the Annals of the Four Masters. He could even have referred to Cardinal Tom Fee’s brief but very helpful history of Irish missionary endeavours and monasticism throughout Europe. But Leo was determined that nothing about Ireland’s relationship with the Church should emerge in a good light. The Minister for Children had adopted a similar attitude when she met Pope Francis at the Vice-Regal Lodge a little earlier. Again her job was a strictly formal one. She was there to represent the Government as Pope Francis met President Higgins. She was not there to slip the Pontiff letters or memoranda. Although she has given many accounts of her strictly heroic efforts to communicate her message to the Pope – as if she had had to cross enemy lines to do so – it was crystal clear that none of this was either necessary or appropriate, The frequent shots and pictures of Ambassador Emma Madigan reminded us (and hopefully the Government) that Ireland actually maintains an Embassy at the Holy See and that it is the normal business of such Embassies to transmit and communicate documents and memoranda of this nature. A Pope who was less kind and less courteous than Francis would simply have asked the Minister for Children to transmit her communication “Through normal diplomatic channels”. But from a legal point of view and perspective just how startling and explosive are the Minister for Children’s revelations? The first thing that should be said (and this may disappoint the Minister, the Government and many Irish commentators), is that there is no way the Irish Government or any one acting on their behalf can force or constrain the Vatican to do anything in this matter, or indeed in any other matter. The Vatican is, like Ireland, an independent sovereign State and cannot be constrained to take or follow a course of action against its will. The converse is also true. It is perfectly open to the Vatican to make a contribution in relation to the Babies, should it so wish or choose to do so. However, I think it should be born in mind that the case relating to the Babies is far from an open and shut one. Assuming that Catherine is correct and that almost 800 Babies were found at the burial site, it would be very important to identify the cause of death. It doesn’t automatically follow that because the Babies are dead that they died as the result of maltreatment by a Home run by a religious order. For example, it is perfectly possible that the children died as the result of consumption or some other highly infectious disease. In such circumstances, it may not have been possible to bury the babies with the care which we would consider normal, desirable and appropriate. It is a very large step to take a great many years after the event to deduce that just because the Babies died, they must have died as a result of maltreatment. It is also a very large assumption to make that if there were any failings in this matter, they were all on the part of the Church authorities and that the Civil authorities (whom, in a sense, the Minister for Children represents) were blameless and have no part of or share in the responsibility. But there is a further difficulty, if money is to be paid, to whom should it be paid and on what basis? It is an unfortunate reality of Law that plaintiffs who bring a case while they are still alive fare much better than plaintiffs who are represented in legal proceedings which take place after their deaths. It is hard to envisage legal circumstances or principles which would enable a Court to award huge or very substantial damages to a relative of one of the Babies. It is hard to see how a case can be made for the Vatican paying a huge sum of money in this matter, while the Irish State paid nothing. It may be appropriate to erect a suitable memorial by which to remember the Babies. I am sure that if Pope Francis were to be approached in a kind and diplomatic fashion, he would not be found wanting and would make an ex gratia contribution to such a memorial.

Maurice James, Barrister at Law