What a week. It began with the scurrilous coverage of Liam Lawlor's death, and the gleefully repeated and entirely false allegation that the woman in the car was working in prostitution.
Where have 40 years of struggling for recognition of women's rights gone wrong, if the reflex response to a woman being in a car with a man is that she has to be working in prostitution?
Is that how far we have advanced towards viewing women as human beings, and not just stock sexual-fantasy figures?
Apart from regressive stereotyping of women, the level of vindictiveness displayed towards Liam Lawlor was shocking. Certainly he had major questions to answer, but he has a family mourning him as a father and husband.
Later in the week, when the profoundly depressing vista of the abuses committed in Ferns was laid before us again, it was moving to hear Colm O'Gorman calling for compassion for the family of the priest, Fr Sean Fortune, who had abused him.
It was a moment of light in a dark week, to see someone who had been abused able to empathise with the Fortune family, who are also experiencing deep suffering. It would have been nice if some members of the media could have exercised similar compassion towards the family of Liam Lawlor.
The deluge of perverted sexuality that pours from the pages of the Ferns report is truly overwhelming. Criminal abuse was compounded by criminal neglect. The report rightly commends Bishop Eamonn Walsh, who in two years was able to make it clear that there is now a new way of reacting to allegations of sexual abuse of children by clergy, one with clear guidelines and policies that will be strictly followed.
Yet if Bishop Walsh can do that, why has every other bishop in the country not done likewise? There is still an uneasy feeling that the response is patchy, and very dependent on the personality of the bishop in charge. That simply is not good enough.
There is now talk of a national audit by the State of the church's response to child abuse. I have long been of the view that an audit carried out by independent and reputable professionals should have been put in place by the church itself. An audit under the leadership of Justice Hussey was proposed, but was cancelled when a State inquiry was announced.
I believe that to have been a mistake. It was vital that the church be seen to put its own house in order, and to be able to say with credibility: "Insofar as it is humanly possible, we have done everything we can to prevent any child being abused in the future."
The child protection policy drawn up for religious organisations by the Lynott group reflects best practice internationally and appears to have been taken very seriously in some dioceses, notably Dublin.
However, the church must now take steps to show the public that it is being implemented in every diocese and religious congregation. It is too important an issue to be addressed in an ad hoc manner.
Mr Justice Frank Murphy has produced an exemplary report, which although harrowing in the extreme to read, is impressive in its even-handedness and thoroughness. However, it is perhaps a reflection of the dearth of research on sexual abuse of children by clergy and religious that the expert group who assisted Mr Justice Murphy had to draw on some material dating from the 1960s and 1970s. Notably, the expert group cited the work of a Dutch psychiatrist, Dr Conrad Baars, and of a former priest, Eugene Kennedy. Both pieces date from the 1970s.
This research has been widely cited in the press, to the effect that there is widespread emotional and sexual immaturity among priests, which may lead to "destructive behaviour patterns".
Interestingly, Eugene Kennedy has objected to his work being used to draw conclusions about priests in general, stating that priests in all probability are no different from any other professional group. In his opinion, priests as a body have no more major psychological difficulties than the general population.
Conrad Baars's research dealt with priests who had emotional difficulties and therefore cannot be extrapolated to priests as a whole. Somewhat curiously, the expert group was unanimous that celibacy contributed to the problem of child sexual abuse in the church, yet cites no research to prove this assertion.
To my knowledge, no such research exists. One small study cited states that 92 per cent of men who abused children were aware of their attraction to children by age 21, which would seem to contradict the idea that celibacy was a contributing factor, because no man would be ordained by 21.
Celibacy is the wrong target in the fight against child abuse. There is a great need for better supports in living celibacy, and it is notable that many of the clergy in Ferns referred to loneliness, isolation and poor communication.
However, it is wise to be wary of any implication that child abuse is somehow a response to absence of other sexual outlets. It is much more deep-rooted and complex.
There is a grave need to have better screening for candidates to the priesthood, so that people who are already sexually troubled do not attempt to hide behind celibacy, or worse, use the opportunities provided by the priesthood to abuse.
Celibacy is a valid topic for debate, but it is simplistic to suggest some of the abusers in Ferns would not have abused if they had been married. Sadly, most abusers of children are or will be married at some stage.
Colm O'Gorman made another very valid point this week. Even if the church gets its house in order, what about the rest of society? The church has been guilty of heinous and culpable neglect. Justifiable outrage at past failures should not distract us from the fact that most abusers do not wear Roman collars. Nor are most of those who wear Roman collars guilty of abuse. Most abuse is carried out by lay people.
As a society, we must ensure that we are not in denial of that reality, especially since we have seen the awful consequences of denial in the past.