November 6 2018 - Association Of Catholic Priests

Skip to content

Search for:

Home
Liturgy
Blog
Events
About
Contact

Search for:

Home / 2018 / November / 06

06 November. All the Saints of Ireland. Feast

All the Saints of Ireland

Read More 06 November. All the Saints of Ireland. Feast

▼

SunMonTueWedThuFriSat

1

3031

1234

282930

12

31

1234

293031

123

1

30

1234

282930

12

31

2930

123

1

3031

1

1234

293031

12

2930

123

1

30

1234

282930

12

31

123

12

31

1234

293031

12

1

3031

123

1

30

1234

1234

262728

293031

123

1

3031

123

12

31

1234

293031

12

2728

1

3031

1234

282930

12

31

1234

293031

123

1

3031

123

28

12

31

2930

123

1

3031

1234

282930

12

31

1234

293031

1

1234

293031

12

2930

123

1

30

1234

282930

12

31

12

1

3031

123

1

30

1234

293031

12

2930

123

123

12

31

1234

293031

12

1

3031

123

1

30

1234

1234

262728

293031

123

1

3031

123

12

31

1234

293031

12

2829

12

31

2930

123

1

3031

1234

282930

12

31

1234

293031

123

1

30

1234

282930

12

31

2930

123

1

3031

1

232425262728

1234

293031

12

2930

123

1

30

1234

282930

12

31

12

1

3031

123

1

30

1234

293031

12

2930

123

1234

293031

123

25262728293031

1

3031

123

12

31

1234

293031

12

2728

1

3031

1234

262728293031

123456

78910111213

14151617181920

21222324252627

282930

Sunday Homily Resources

Weekday Homily Resources

Presider's Page

Most Recent Comments

20 comments
Damian O’Farrell – a survivor, responds to the recent statement from the Christian Brothers following a judge’s decision to name former members of the Congregation in a newspaper advert following a civil claim brought by a survivor.
September 1 2026
Soline Humbert
# 18 Damian you have certainly done your best in explaining clearly and patiently in your original post and subsequent comments (including #16 and among all the red herrings) why this present complex litigation strategy is harmful in so many ways, both to victims/survivors of abuse and also innocent members of the order. And yes a continuing strategy and mindset which indeed fall well short of professed Gospel values. Pax et Bonum.
Go To Comment
20 comments
Damian O’Farrell – a survivor, responds to the recent statement from the Christian Brothers following a judge’s decision to name former members of the Congregation in a newspaper advert following a civil claim brought by a survivor.
September 1 2026
Damian O Farrell
I think we can only do our best, and I will leave my contribution here. I am grateful to those who engaged compassionately. But when others continue to pass over the substantive issue of present day harm to survivors I am reminded of Matthew 25:45. This exchange has also given me a deeper understanding of something Pope Francis said when I and seven other survivors met him during his 2018 visit to Ireland. Speaking of the clerical Church, he said: “The Holy Spirit was trying to escape.”
Go To Comment
20 comments
Damian O’Farrell – a survivor, responds to the recent statement from the Christian Brothers following a judge’s decision to name former members of the Congregation in a newspaper advert following a civil claim brought by a survivor.
September 1 2026
Joe O'Leary
It strikes me that male and female were strictly segregated in Irish education and church life. From 3 to 5 I was handled by women (Sr Eucharia, Mrs Brown, Miss Roche) in the North Presentation Convent, Cork, and on one occasion I was sitting in the girls' primary school -- they seemed very grown up and it was a totally female world. In the North Mon I do not think I ever saw a single woman in ten years. If I remember correctly, men and women sat on opposite sides of the church on Sunday. Men's and women's confraternities (and Lenten retreats) were strictly separated. Has there been any commentary on this phenomenon from the sociological, historical, religious points of view? Well, claude.com comes to the rescue again: Judith Harford and Tom O'Donoghue's article "An Ireland of Brave, Manly Boys, an Ireland of Pure, Modest Girls": The Education System and the Regulation of Sexuality in Ireland, 1922–1968, examines how the Catholic Church, working closely with the Irish State, used the education system to regulate Irish sexuality in the early decades of independence. The Irish bishops opposed co-education on the grounds that mixing boys and girls was "injurious to the delicacy of feeling, reserve and modesty of demeanour which should characterise young girls" and was "detrimental, especially for older students". A Department of Education committee recommended that "co-education should be avoided as far as possible," and that stance held well into the 1960s. Alan Titley holds that segregation in Church-run secondary schools was tied directly to their main function of recruiting clergy. The marriage bar for women teachers remained in place until 1958 despite opposition from the Irish National Teachers' Organisation, which argued it was unconstitutional and would reduce marriage rates. Harford and O'Donoghue draw on Susan K. Freeman's US-focused study of 1940s–50s classrooms offers insight into how sex education might have addressed adolescent challenges, particularly for girls — used as a comparative lens on what Irish schools were not doing. The unwinding of the system: the same scholarship links the eventual breakdown of segregation and Church authority to women's greater access to the workplace and public life from the late 1960s, which let them challenge Church teaching and dismantle a key pillar of its ideological authority, alongside the democratisation of post-primary education. Some historians push back on a purely repressive reading of the period. A History Ireland piece reappraising this narrative draws on comparative British work (Joanna Bourke, Dennis et al.) to argue that restricted access to contraception and sexual information was not uniquely Irish but mirrored patterns in working-class British and mining communities of the same era — a useful corrective against treating Irish segregation/sexual conservatism as wholly exceptional.
Go To Comment
20 comments
Damian O’Farrell – a survivor, responds to the recent statement from the Christian Brothers following a judge’s decision to name former members of the Congregation in a newspaper advert following a civil claim brought by a survivor.
September 1 2026
Damian O Farrell
I have been requested by survivors reading the comments above to set out for all interested what a survivor faces in trying to avail of our Civil Courts. Background On-going litigation experience of an historical child sexual abuse victim (primary school) whereby the Christian Brother perpetrator pleaded guilty to offences of a sexual nature in an Irish criminal court and was subsequently sentenced (multiple victims etc). The now adult victim is seeking financial redress/compensation through our civil court system. The Congregation of Christian Brothers is on record saying they will meet any such claims in a candid, consolatory and fair manner. The reality is somewhat different. Legal background A Supreme Court ruling has meant that Plaintiffs cannot sue the Congregation of Christian Brothers as they are an unincorporated body but, individually, former or present members of the Congregation are capable of vicarious liability for any wrongdoing of another member of the Congregation. One or more Brothers can act as representatives for the Congregation. In this typical case the Congregation leader is sued as representative of the Congregation of Christian Brothers. In advance of proceedings the plaintiff i.e. victim, will have already invited proposals for settlement. Ongoing civil litigation experience of a child sexual abuse victim The Congregation leader has refused to act as legal nominee of the Congregation for the purpose of defending the proceedings, or to nominate any other Brothers. In those circumstances, the Plaintiff had no option but to sue the Brothers and former members (ie. all congregation members at the time of the abuse) individually under the doctrine of vicarious liability. (Supreme Court ref above). To do so, a victim requires their names and addresses. The Order has refused to provide those names and addresses (claim of GDPR) obliging the Plaintiff to apply to the High Court by way of an application for Interlocutory Discovery for an Order directing the Order to provide the names and addresses of all current Members of the Congregation. That Order when granted and in compliance with the Order, the names and addresses of all current members of the Congregation, then totalling one hundred and sixty members, two (is this case example) is provided to the Litigant/ abuse victim. Typically up to 25% of the addresses can be incorrect as members due to their age may have transferred to a nursing home. An application was then made to the High Court to amend the proceedings so as to increase the number of Defendants in this case example from two to one hundred and sixty two. That Order was granted. A further High Court application must be made seeking liberty to serve the amended proceedings on those members of the Congregation, numbering thirteen, who reside overseas and therefore outside of the Jurisdiction of the Court. This is not the first case where this sequence of applications has been necessary because a representative has not been nominated by the Congregation, for the purposes of Defending proceedings on behalf of the Congregation. Such pre-trial applications give rise to delay and therefore distress for litigant victims (not to mention significant legal costs/financial pressures). In the case referred to above, having obliged the Litigant/victim to obtain an Order joining all current members of the Order as Defendants to the case, the Orders leadership declined to allow the Solicitors instructed by the leader to defend the leader in the case, to act for those other members. This is highly significant as you will see below and victims feel this is a ‘double’ abuse, revisiting trauma, etc. As a result of these actions the litigant/victim will potentially have to deal with over 160 different legal firms, many outside this jurisdiction as individual Order members are being required to find/instruct Solicitors to defend themselves in the case. A consequence of this choice by the Orders Leadership is that the Order members, many of advanced age (average age 80) and failing health, residents of Nursing homes, have received formal legal communications inviting them to compensate the Litigant/victim by reason of the sexual acts and batteries of the original perpetrator (first named Defendant). This treatment of the Order’s child sexual abuse victims and their own elderly members by the Order’s leadership team is in my opinion unconscionable. It was within the leadership’s discretion to instruct one firm of Solicitors to act for all members of the Congregation without any impact on the Defence of the Action. This is the element of power and control I referred to, not to mention trauma triggering for victims as they feel there is zero compassion being shown to them. Conclusion The Order well know that future settlement talks/meditation have to be initiated by the Defendants (Christian Brothers) in circumstances where both the original perpetrator and Orders Leader (as representative) have filed full Defences and denials to the claims that are being made. At the outset, and in advance of issuing their proceedings, Plaintiffs will have already invited proposals. If the Christian Brothers are sincere in their view, that claims will be treated in a candid, consolatory and fair manner then it is a simple matter to instruct the Solicitors currently ‘on record’ for the Province Leader to act for all members of the Congregation, this will have no impact on the Defence of the Actions and/or to invite settlement discussions or mediation in the expectation that this will be positively received. This will remove the unjust burden being placed on victims and other members of the Congregation as well as reducing timeframe and costs. The above treatment of victims prevents others coming forward and also some victims will die before cases are settled. The above case history was the reason that a High Court judge recently allowed service of summons to be carried out by newspaper advertisement, thereby naming 341 former Brothers, the vast majority innocent. The above is, in my opinion, as far from Gospel values as is possible.
Go To Comment

previous comment

Copyright 2026. Designed by acton|bv

Home
Liturgy
Blog
Events
About
Contact