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.

Link to Christian Brothers’ Statement

Link to Newspaper Advertisement details

Tony Flannery’s comment on the issue, which also appeared in the Irish Times

Follow-up Irish Times article: Survivors experience Christian Brothers’ litigation strategy as abuse by other means – The Irish Times https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/2026/08/30/survivors-experience-christian-brothers-litigation-strategy-as-abuse-by-other-means/

Damian O’Farrell: When is mediation really a choice? A survivor’s perspective

The recent Christian Brothers’ statement published on the Association of Catholic Priests website sets out the congregation’s approach to civil claims arising from childhood sexual abuse. It emphasises mediation, early resolution and avoiding the financial and emotional costs of prolonged litigation. Importantly, the statement presents mediation as a route survivors and their legal representatives are choosing.

There is nothing inherently wrong with mediation. Few survivors want years of adversarial litigation. My own pursuit of civil justice against the Order in the 1990s, and before the present litigation strategy, lasted nine years, so I understand the attraction of an earlier and less confrontational resolution.

But describing survivors as opting for mediation raises an important question: how meaningful is that choice when the alternative has been made so difficult?

The Christian Brothers say they seek “a just, timely and appropriate resolution of claims” and describe mediation as offering a less adversarial and more compassionate process. Those are worthwhile aims. But a choice is meaningful only when there is a realistic alternative.

The congregation leadership have been heavily criticised for its litigation strategy, particularly its decision not to nominate a person to accept proceedings on its behalf. This can leave survivors having to issue and serve proceedings on large numbers of individual Brothers and former Brothers without even having access to the addresses needed to serve them. In one recent case, the High Court ultimately permitted service by newspaper advertisement on 341 former members of the congregation. The process can take multiple years and can hinder healing. 

Another consequence of not putting forward a nominee is that very few solicitor firms or survivors have the resources to carry the financial cost of complex litigation for years. This cost is often levied on survivors in order to keep the case going. Against that background, saying that survivors and their legal representatives are opting for mediation risks presenting as free choice what may be practical necessity.

There is also a legitimate question about who benefits financially. Mediation and early resolution can produce considerable savings in legal costs. If the compensation received by survivors through mediation is not as the Brothers state, ‘materially different’ from that achieved through prolonged litigation proceedings, to what extent do survivors share in those savings? A process that substantially reduces costs for the congregation should surely provide some corresponding benefit to those whose claims are being resolved.

At its heart, childhood sexual abuse involves the taking of power and control; that is why questions of choice and agency can carry such significance for survivors. A process that appears reasonable from an institutional perspective can feel very different to someone who believes the institution continues to determine the terms on which they can seek justice. 

Mediation can be valuable. It can offer privacy, flexibility and earlier resolution. But its value depends on it being genuinely voluntary. It should not become the only realistic option because the alternative has been effectively blocked.

There should equally be compassion for older Brothers who neither abused children nor had responsibility for what occurred. Protecting them from being served with High Court summonses and providing survivors with meaningful access to civil justice should not be competing objectives.

Survivors themselves were among the first to express concern about the distress caused to older Brothers receiving High Court proceedings when they may have had no personal involvement in the abuse. But survivors did not create this situation. It follows from an institutional decision, however lawful, not to put forward a nominee.  It is my understanding that no other Catholic religious order or diocese in Ireland, follows the same path in defending civil claims. 

For a religious congregation, these questions have an additional dimension. Justice, compassion and concern for those who have been harmed are central Christian values.

The issue, therefore, is not whether mediation is preferable to litigation. It is whether survivors genuinely have a choice between them. For people whose choices were taken from them as children, that distinction is vital.

If the Christian Brothers’ present litigation strategy is primarily intended to spare survivors the ordeal of an adversarial court process, there is a straightforward solution: nominate a person to accept proceedings on behalf of the congregation and allow survivors to choose.

Those who wish to pursue civil proceedings could do so. Those who prefer mediation could choose that route with the Christian Brothers organisation.

That would not compel anyone to litigate or to mediate. It would simply place the choice and some of the power back where it belongs: with the person seeking justice.