Vatican Protests free state brutality towards Irish POWs
Free State Papers – 1977: Bishops lashed out over ‘grim’ jail conditions for republican prisoners 30 December 2007 By Brian Maye Sunday Business Post The coalition government came in for criticism from an unlikely source - members of the Catholic hierarchy - over prisoner conditions in Portlaoise, as revealed in the newly-released state papers. Throughout 1975 and for some of 1976, minister for justice Paddy Cooney and the Bishop of Kildare and Leighlin, Patrick Lennon (his diocese included Portlaoise), exchanged letters on the subject. I n January 1975, Bishop Lennon wrote to Cooney to express concern about the ‘‘very grim’’ conditions in the prison. He was concerned about the “ religious facilities’’ (he wanted the prison chapel, then in use for military stores, to be returned to normal use) and the psychological damage to prisoners because of curtailed family visits. In a letter in April, the bishop referred to the ‘‘grim, forbidding and . . . inhuman conditions for family visits’’. Cooney replied denying the visiting conditions were such, and explaining why they had to be curtailed: prisoners had covertly received explosives from visitors. This set the theme and tone for the correspondence over almost two years: the bishop making observations and requests, the minister denying the accuracy of the observations and denying the requests, invariably on ‘‘security’’ grounds. Matters got a little heated when, following the forwarding by the bishop in June of a list of requests as put to him by prisoners’ representatives, Cooney replied that such matters (better visiting facilities, craft work in cells, PE facilities etc) could be termed ‘‘lay’’ administrative matters, and he regretted that the prisoners had taken advantage of the bishop’s generosity by asking him to refer to them. Bishop Lennon refused to accept Cooney’s comment about ‘‘lay’’ matters. As a citizen, he had a legitimate interest, he said, and as bishop of the diocese, he was closely concerned because of the spiritual dimension involved. Cooney’s terse reply did not refer to this point at all, but expressed regret about not being able to accede to the bishop’s wishes concerning Mass facilities, saying he was keeping the situation under review. Another clash occurred in December 1975 over a chaplain no longer deemed as acceptable to the prison authorities, apparently because he was getting too close to the prisoners. Bishop Edward Daly of Derry entered the fray in September 1976. He broadened the criticism somewhat. He referred to allegations of harsh conditions coming from people he knew and trusted, and suggested a way of refuting such allegations (if they were untrue): permit a group to visit the prison to see for themselves. He pointed out he could freely visit prisons in the North but he had been refused permission to visit two men from his own diocese in Portlaoise. When Cooney replied justifying the prison conditions and refusing any group permission to visit, Bishop Daly upped the ante. Referring to the North, he wrote: ‘‘The prison authorities here are dealing with similar people as the prison authorities in the Republic, yet they appear to deal with them in a more humane manner.” He went on to describe visiting arrangements in Portlaoise as ‘‘unjust’’. Returning to his idea of a visiting group, he suggested Bishop Lennon or himself, TDs from various parties or others of Cooney’s own choosing. In February 1977, the minister replied, enclosing a memo about the prison conditions which he had recently circulated in the Dail. With a hunger strike to secure better conditions threatening in Portlaoise in early March, the government warned that nothing would be achieved by such a gesture. Near the end of March, Bishop Daly wrote to taoiseach Liam Cosgrave, again urging a group (he specified Bishop Lennon and himself) be allowed visit the prison. He said Derry was quieter than it had been for some time and support for the IRA had never been lower, but if hunger strikers died, that could all change. When Cosgrave consulted Cooney, the justice minister suggested the bishops not be allowed visit, as they would undoubtedly conclude the prison regime was too strict, playing into the hands of IRA propagandists. Cosgrave replied to Bishop Daly accordingly. In late April, Cosgrave wrote to Garret FitzGerald, minister for foreign affairs, saying there had been considerable resentment expressed by ministers at the ‘‘tone and content’’ of recent public statements by the bishop. The intention was to make government concern known to the Pope through the Irish ambassador to the Vatican. The letter also referred to press speculation about Cardinal Conway’s successor (the cardinal had died earlier in the month) and how government views on this could be made known to the Vatican. No diplomatic protest materialised (it seems FitzGerald discouraged it) but this didn’t prevent what almost amounted to a diplomatic incident occurring between Ireland and the Vatican, following a frosty exchange of letters between Cosgrave and the Papal Nuncio, Gaetano Alibrandi, on April 20 (the letters are not in the files) over the hunger strike. The Irish ambassador to the Holy See was called in by top-ranking Vatican official Cardinal Benelli on April 25 and presented with a note concerning the hunger strike (which, ironically, had ended on April 22).This referred to the prisoners having gone on hunger strike for ‘‘more humane treatment’’ and alleviation of the ‘‘extremely severe measures’’ of their incarceration. The ambassador turned the note around on Benelli’s desk - a traditional diplomatic gesture to show the contents wouldn’t be acceptable to his government. Benelli assured him the Papacy’s interest was purely pastoral but, because of the reliability of their sources in Ireland (probably Alibrandi and possibly bishops Daly and Lennon), they had to make their position known. He asked that a report of the Appunto (note) be sent to Dublin. The ambassador sent his report and the Appunto for reference. Dublin’s reaction was predictably furious. It replied that the hunger strike was organised by people convicted of murder and other serious crimes in the course of a terrorist campaign costing 2,000 Irish lives. The government stressed its policy was based on the rule of law and that it took strong exception to Vatican interference in a matter affecting the security of the state. On May 10, the government considered whether to ask for the Nuncio’s withdrawal, but decided to await the Vatican’s reply. The latter proved satisfactory and Dr Alibrandi continued in his post until 1989.