Accountability and Morality in Ireland’s Institutional Abuse Redress: Church, State, and the Quest for Justice
- Frank Brehany
- 2 days ago
- 7 min read
The question of accountability for those who were made victims and survivors of Ireland's abusive institutional system remains a profoundly complex and morally charged issue. Over decades, a wide range of gross human rights violations were committed within various institutions, many of which were run or heavily influenced by religious orders in conjunction with the State. The recent Mother and Baby Homes Redress Scheme has brought this issue into sharp focus, raising difficult questions about responsibility, reparations, and the ethical obligations of both Church and State. This blog explores the ongoing conflicts surrounding accountability, the reluctance of religious orders to contribute to redress, and the moral imperatives that underpin the quest for a human rights settlement for victims, survivors, and their families.
The Historical Context of Institutional Abuse in Ireland
Ireland’s institutional system, particularly throughout the 20th century, was marked by widespread abuses in homes for unmarried mothers and their children, industrial schools, and other State-sanctioned facilities. These institutions, often run by religious orders, were sites of neglect, physical and emotional abuse, and in some instances, death. The legacy of these abuses has left deep scars on survivors and their families, who have long sought recognition, justice, and reparations.
The State’s involvement in these institutions was not merely passive; it was complicit through legislation, funding, and oversight failures. The Church, meanwhile, wielded significant social and political influence, often operating with little accountability. This dual responsibility complicates the question of who should bear the burden of redress.
The Mother and Baby Homes Redress Scheme: A Turning Point
Whilst previous Redress Schemes have been presented for other institutions, the establishment of the Mother and Baby Homes Redress Scheme marked a significant step towards acknowledging the State’s role in these abuses, providing some measure of compensation to survivors. However, the scheme also exposed the tensions between the State and religious orders regarding financial responsibility.
An expectation grew that religious orders, which operated many of these homes, would contribute to the redress fund. Yet, as revealed in the Nunan Report, these orders have generally remained reluctant to participate financially. This reluctance has frustrated many survivors and advocates, who view it as a failure to accept moral and legal responsibility.
Upon publication of the report, Irish politicians began to challenge the government. One Irish TD called for action against the reluctant religious orders:
"What will it take for the State to finally act and go after these orders with more than a begging bowl?...Going cap in hand to religious orders was not a successful strategy. This is hardly surprising in view of the fact that we know these orders would much prefer to pay their armies of lawyers than the women and children they tortured and abused. These orders own assets worth hundreds of millions".
The Taoiseach responded by stating that:
"I am sure the Deputy appreciates there have to be processes regarding the legality of whatever the government does. Suffice to say that the Government did not wait around for religious orders...The Government has not gone cap in hand to anyone...As I said earlier, it is a matter on which we will have to take advice in terms of the precise and specific issues that pertain to mother and baby homes, which will be different to those that applied to industrial schools, for example, where the State was directly involved in terms of inspectorial reports and inspections of those schools. It was the State that put many young people into industrial schools, unlike mother and baby home. The State was not directly involved in the latter. Nonetheless, we will see what is the most effective way to get a contribution from the religious orders and what options are available".
The Minister responsible has organised for legal advice to be given to the government so that they can consider the options.
Of those legal options, many have pointed out that there is an Irish Constitutional clause which prohibits the seizure of Church property. The provision can be found within Article 44. This article is about the State supporting freedom of religion. However, within the clause, it provides wide-sweeping protections for any religion. Under Article 44.5 it states that:
"Every religious denomination shall have the right to manage its own affairs, own, acquire and administer property, moveable and immovable and maintain institutions for religious or charitable purposes".
This is a comprehensive protection, made without qualification it seems to secular law and its expectations.
But Article 44.6 specifically states:
"The property of any religious denomination or any educational institution shall not be diverted save for necessary works of public utility and on payment of compensation".
44.6 is an interesting provision because it contains two elements, that being of 'public utility' and 'compensation'. I suspect Irish government lawyers are pouring over the phrase 'public utility' and what that means and perhaps how it is defined across common-law jurisdictions. Then there is the issue of 'compensation'. How would that be considered against the decision made on what a 'public utility' is and whether 'compensation' would simply enrich the wrong-doer or whether those wrongs negate the requirement for compensation.
It is an interesting conundrum and it is one that is taxing many who are taking positions on the rights or wrongs of requiring Religious Orders to contribute to the Mother and Baby Home Redress Scheme.
Perhaps the solution is causing for an amendment to be made to the Irish Constitution that qualifies, limits or removes the privileges for any religion and its institutions?
But whatever the debate on these legal issues, the discussion has rolled on since April 2025. In December of that year, it appears that the Primate of Ireland, Archbishop Eamon Martin expressed his views about the potential direction of travel and the threat to the assets of the Church, stating that:
"I would hope that we are not back into penal times where the churches will be unjustly targeted with regard to assets...[he was concerned that the debate and process was about]...political opportunism...[adding]...I would be disappointed if the State just simply scapegoated religious orders or the church".
In response, one Irish Politician, Claire Kerrane stated:
"I would reject any such view of political opportunism...As regards ‘justly apportioned’, what responsibility has the Church taken and what have they done to take on that responsibility and the consequences of same? Unless I’ve missed something: very little I would say".
And this drama is set to roll and roll; in the meantime, Justice remains unsatisfied!
The Conflict Between Church and State: Legal and Moral Dimensions
The conflict between Church and State over accountability for institutional abuses is not merely a legal dispute but a profound moral dilemma. On one hand, the Church’s historical role in Irish society and its charitable work are often invoked to argue against punitive measures such as property seizure. On the other hand, the moral imperative to provide justice and reparations to victims demands that all responsible parties contribute meaningfully.
The State’s position is that it cannot shoulder the entire financial burden alone, especially given the scale of abuses and the resources available to religious orders. The appointment of an advocate to mediate between the parties, as documented in the Nunan Report, was an attempt to find common ground. However, the persistent unwillingness of religious orders to engage constructively has led to proposals that challenge long-standing deference to the Church.
This situation raises critical questions about the nature of accountability: Should historical of Constitutional status exempt institutions from responsibility? How should society balance respect for tradition with the need for justice? These questions resonate beyond Ireland, touching on universal themes of power, responsibility, and human rights.
The Moral Imperative for a Human Rights Settlement
At the heart of this debate lies the urgent need to deliver a human rights settlement that acknowledges the suffering of victims and survivors and provides tangible redress. The moral arguments in favour of such a settlement are compelling and multifaceted.
Firstly, survivors and their families have endured profound harm, often compounded by decades of silence and denial. A just settlement must recognise their dignity and humanity, offering not only financial compensation but also genuine formal apologies, access to records, support services, the recognition of all those excluded, alive or dead, the right to know and above all, the delivery of a full and true 'non-recurrence'.
Secondly, accountability serves a preventative function. By holding institutions responsible, society sends a clear message that abuses of power and violations of human rights will not be tolerated. This is essential to rebuilding trust and ensuring that such abuses do not recur.
Finally, the moral legitimacy of the State and Church depends on their willingness to confront past wrongs honestly and transparently. This is the role of 'non-recurrence', an element of International Human Rights Law and its obligations. The delivery of 'non-recurrence' can provide for the presentation of context and truth against victim and survivor testimony; it answers the question of "why?". It explains why these terrible events happened; it is a truth-telling that requires that Church & State are openly subjected to and accept some uncomfortable truths.
Pathways Forward: Recommendations for Justice and Reconciliation
In light of the complexities outlined, several practical recommendations emerge for advancing justice and reconciliation in Ireland’s institutional abuse redress process:
Enhanced Transparency and Dialogue
Both the State and religious orders should commit to greater transparency regarding their roles and responsibilities. Open dialogue with survivors and advocacy groups is essential to building trust and understanding. Such dialogue must include and provide valuable engagement with all those victims and survivors who died before a State apology, and their surviving families.
Comprehensive Redress Funding
The financial contributions to redress schemes should reflect the scale of responsibility. This may require innovative approaches, including the proposed use of religious orders’ assets, but it clearly must be handled with sensitivity to legal and ethical considerations and perhaps a courage to deliver innovative solutions. One burning question will be, whether such courage could lead finally to a separation of Church & State in Ireland?.
Legal and Policy Reforms
Strengthening legal frameworks and creating State Institutional reform to prevent future abuses and ensure accountability is crucial - this is another factor contained within 'non-recurrence'. This includes revisiting the State’s oversight mechanisms and the role of religious institutions in public services.
Public Education and Commemoration
Raising awareness of the history and impact of institutional abuses - a key element of 'non-recurrence'. This requires that all burial grounds or questions over burial grounds are comprehensively examined and resolved through, if required, excavation and exhumation. Inquiries into the causes of deaths should be carried out and any resolution that requires action needs to take place. Other areas should develop through co-design, education and memorialisation. These factors can foster societal healing and prevent denial or minimisation of past wrongs.
By pursuing these pathways, Ireland can move closer to fulfilling its obligations to victims and survivors, honouring their experiences, and upholding the principles of justice and human rights.
The ongoing debate over accountability for Ireland’s institutional abuses is emblematic of broader struggles to reconcile history, morality, and justice. While the challenges are formidable, the imperative to deliver a human rights settlement that respects and restores the dignity of survivors remains paramount. It is through measured, principled action that society can begin to heal the wounds of the past and build a more just future.
Comments