Papal nuncio recalled to Rome

"One way to read this development is that this is diplomatic language: the Vatican is signalling to Ireland that it takes the Cloyne Report seriously -- that it finally gets it. Another way to read the move is that the Vatican has offered a diplomatic snub to the Irish state as an expression of its displeasure following the Taoiseach's fiery attack."

It can only be the latter - or at least that's where i'd put my money. The Vatican is not in the business of appeasing people who accuse it of "narcissism".

So far, Enda Kenny has received 2500 letters thanking him for his moving speech last week. That number will go up as his speech reverberates around the world.

I read his speech out on Sunday at my Masses. It was given a standing ovation.

I freely admit, I was reduced to tears when I heard it first.

To hear the Catholic leader, of a Catholic Government in a Catholic country, speak the way he did, moved me to the core. It has been a long time coming.

To hear him talk of protecting the "magic of childhood", a magic which was stolen from me and so many others, I cried.

To hear him speak of teenagers being CHILDREN, was so long awaited. (How many times have I heard these clerics, and their supporters, say that teenagers know what they are doing or that it was gay men who were the perpetrators because their victims were teenagers!!)

To hear Enda speak about decent priests who must have questioned their own sanity - my God, how many times did I think I was going mad over the last three decades? - and for him to place the blame exactly where it belongs - not on gay people (Bertone), Woodstock (the US Bishop's Conference and Theophane), Vatican II Council, liberals, secularists, the Media, parents, the police (MCC) - but on the culture of clericalism which emantes from the Vatican all the way down, was an incredible thing to hear.

This culture of clericalism has sacked or excommunicated some of the finest Catholics on the planet, while rewarding some of the most odious - Escriva, Marcel Maciel, Cardinal Law....

They have tried to rewrite Vatican II Council where there were overwhelming votes for Collegiality, participation by the laity, a refocus on the Gospel and Mass in the Vernacular. They have deliberately peddled the lie that Vatican II actually meant the polar opposite of these things.

They attacked walking saints like Oscar Romero and Helder Camera, while fast tracking sainthoods for the likes of Pius the XII, and making pacts with some of the most fascist governments on the planet.

Theo completely misses the point of Enda Kenny's speech when he states, "The Vatican is not in the business of appeasing people who accuse it of "narcissism." "

The Vatican doesnt get to appease or not, anymore. The Vatican will be TOLD what it does in Ireland from here on in. And other countries will follow soon. The game is up, Benny!! They wouldnt listen to anyone this last thirty years. They're listening now! Thank you, Enda Kenny.

@Theo

The Vatican is not in the business of appeasing people who accuse it of "narcissism".

So true. Just like that other well known Italian organisation, they have their own [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]code of conduct when it comes to dealing with those that defy them.

That was a link to the Godfather's horse's head scene, if you hadn't guessed.

Delighted the Holy See has recalled its ambassador (nuncio) as I was afraid they were simply going to accept the vile speech by Kenny last week without reacting. Now we need some Irish bishops to develop back-bones as well to support the Pope, attack Kenny and condemn Bishop Magee, the cowardly culprit of Cloyne.

I trust all those who want us to remember that persons under 18 are children will remember this when we have threads around contraception for children, parental notification around abortion and other similar issues.

The Vatican stands accused of "dysfunction, disconnection, elitism and narcissism"

Well there sure isn't anything new in that statement?

Will Irish people shirk off the tyranny wrought on them via religion, confiscate all RC property and establish a school system predicated on producing literate, critical thinkers?

The Vatican is a fortified castle in Rome. It is the corporate HQ for for RCism. It is not a nation. Countries regenerate populations in the normal way, have soccer moms and families with pets. The effeminate males that are RC executives running the business do not deserve to be called princes. What a travesty Emperor with No Clothes.

Will you all have a Millie Moment and start indicting perpetrators who have harmed children and ultimately the zeitgeist that infected for too many generations?

I think the Vatican would consider almost any public utterance by a national leader criticising its handling of paedophile priests as "excessive".

Every time a report is written about the sexual abuse of children by priests the picture gets worse. The mismatch between Church rhetoric and practice is stark, and more and more people now see Vatican promises to protect children as empty.

It is deeply disturbing that an institution that seeks to shield paedophile priests is responsible for over 90 per cent of Ireland's primary schools.

At last a leader speaks truth re the Vatican - long overdue but better late than never. Well done to Enda Kenny for doing so. The tides are turning ......see this open letter from Australian Catholics to the pope and bishops calling for many changes and talking (mostly) a good deal of sense.....
https://www.petitiononline.com/adlim11/petition.html

Theophane (@ 1) -

The Vatican is not in the business of appeasing people who accuse it of "narcissism".

Having just listened to the Taoiseach's speech, I have to say that I was moved and impressed. I am also taken aback by your response, Theophane, which is completely dismissive of his words.

Are you really suggesting that the Vatican should NEVER be criticised by anyone under any circumstance?

If that is the case, then you are guilty of idolatry, by putting a human institution in the place of God. Only God is perfect, and no man - or group of men, no matter how spiritually powerful they may think they are, can ever be beyond criticism.

Thank God that Enda Kenny has put the laws of the Republic of Ireland above the clerical and elitist agenda of the Vatican. Long may it continue. It kind of reminds me of Someone who put the love of God above the legalistic agenda of another group of religious leaders.

Who is more Christlike? Someone who stands up for the weak and the vulnerable against clerical power or those who are willing to sacrifice human well-being for their own power agenda? The answer can be found in Matthew chapter 23.

No ecclesiastical institution can presume that it is 'of God' simply by being 'Christian' and having historical and theological pedigree. Read the Bible and see that being 'of God' requires a certain behaviour. Read Matthew 7:21-23.

Ten hours later and still the censors at the BBC can't decide whether or not to allow criticism of Enda Kenny. Is the BBC turning into RTE?

LSV,

I think you have it about right.

I have never denied that there are some good things in the Bible, or that Christ as he is portrayed was in many ways a very nice bloke and on this occasion those two combine. We may disagree on the source (divine or otherwise) and on the existence of the people portrayed but I don't think those differences are relevant to this discussion. It is sound advice on the checks and balances which need to be in place to ensure that power does not corrupt absolutely.

One other point - Theophane does not seem too worried about criticising previous Vaticans (for being too liberal etc), just against criticising this Vatican which just so happens to fit his views. I find that just a little on the hypocritical side.

mccamleyc,

maybe they haven't stopped laughing at it yet !!

"THIS is the Republic of Ireland 2011. A republic of laws, of rights and responsibilities; of proper civic order; where the delinquency and arrogance of a particular version, of a particular kind of "morality", will no longer be tolerated or ignored."

Bravo sir, bravo.

This is a republic where successive governments have failed to legislate for mandatory reporting but don't like the Vatican pointing this out. this is a republic where you can lie in the Dail and be caught out by a journalist with a tape recorder. This is a republic where you can accuse the Vatican of doing something three years ago and then say, oh, actually didn't really mean anything specific, just wanted to create a general impression. this is a republic which seeks to rely, not on the rule of law but on opinion, a republic in which the dead can be found guilty without trial. This is a republic whose constitution doesn't say it is a republic but which does say that "In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all actions both of men and States must be referred".

What successive governments have done they are held accountable for by the electorate and you make a very good argument for removing "In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all actions both of men and States must be referred" from the constitution. Hopefully this will all give the impetus required for the Republic to remove any and all links between church and state.

MCC

Breathtaking!

Had you, over the last two years on here, ever even ONCE acknowledged the failures - even criminality - of the Catholic Church, your argument today may have been taken seriously.

As it stands, you have been utterly one sided, biased, even psychophantic - for whatever reason - refusing to recognise that the Church has made even the slightest mistakes.

Dont be shocked if no one pays any attention to what you have to say now. You earned it.

Mind you, I'd be upset at Enda Kenny too, if he drove a double decker bus through all of my delusions.

Interesting tactic from grokesx with his enchanting #3 there - try to make Kenny's speach look measured and diplomatic by comparison. But if Kenny did wish to do a "Henry VIII" (which i don't believe he does), step forward LucyQ to play the part of Thomas Cromwell;

"...confiscate all RC property"?!

...oh and Dave, as RJB likes to ask;

"Theophane does not seem too worried about criticising previous Vaticans (for being too liberal etc), just against criticising this Vatican which just so happens to fit his views."

What are you on about?

It's pretty obvious Theophane.

I have routinely and regularly acknowledged the failures of individuals - I do refuse to accept ideologically based blanket condemnations of the Church. In this instance we have a bishop and a priest who failed to comply with the Church's protection policy - but since neither of them apparently broke any civil laws and everyone earnestly wants the separation of the Church and State what business is it of the State? Arrest them and charge them or shut up.

I like that "held accountable by the electorate" - so anything goes because the electorate vote once every five years? That means the Government of the day have no responsibility for their failures?

mccamleyc,
The electorate gets what it votes for, if it doesn't like it they get booted out, if there is illegal activity they get punished. The fact is that you do not trust people to pass laws which you will approve of and you are scared they will find they can build a better more inclusive society without your interference.

The church wants the same power as a government (actually more as it wants to override the will of the people) but none of the accountability. It is undemocratic and tyrannical never mind that it is ruled from a completely separate statelet.

It is this arrogance of the church, succinctly put by Enda, which is as damaging to the church as the scandals themselves. Rome has lost it's grip and I hope neither it or any other religion every gets it back.

I quite like "government by the people for the people" approach rather than subservience to someone else's god or morality.

If you don't like the Church you just walk away, do your own thing. The Church's rules are only binding on those who chose to accept them.

Each subsequent government failed to implement mandatory reporting legislation - so it's the people who are at fault. That's fine, let Kenny make a speech attacking the Irish electorate.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Naughty boy, RJB, I hope it wasn't about me. The censor has finally released my comment #5 - hard to see why it took a full day.

@21 Dave:
I like that description of government, too but the full text of Lincoln's Gettysburg address includes a nation "under God":

"-that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth. " Abraham Lincoln
(Some detractors of Lincoln question whether "under God" was actually said during the address since the phrase was not included in the early drafts of the speech, but per reporters on site, Mr. Lincoln added "under God" & it is included in the only version with Lincoln's signature per what I've read onlne.)

Sorry, Mod!

I thought that after two years of MCC telling me to get out of the Catholic Church, it would be fine to invite him to leave Ireland if he is so unhappy with it.

Well you see, you can only give up your Irish citizenship if you've another citizenship to embrace whereas if you don't like the Catholic Church you can just walk away. Now RJB I know you always take it personally when I say things like that but I'm speaking generally, not at you. You're welcome to stay and learn to love the Holy Father.

Actually, I meant leave Ireland, not change your passport.
That would be the honest thing to do - as you have repeatedly told me with regard to the Church.

And there may be a chance that I might learn to love Benny (forgive, would probably be a better word.) When he gets on his knees and apologizes for all the damage he has done to our church over three decades.

However, the tide is turning and his days are numbered, as is his rancid ideology.

Got a nice email back from Enda today, btw. Now, there is a good Catholic. A man who is no longer fooled by soutanes and thuribles.

MCC

Have you been following the news about Papal Knight, Rupert Murdoch?

@27.mccamleyc :
I understand what you are saying about walking away from the Church in that sense, but also wanted to remind that as Catholics we receive an indelible spiritual mark at Baptism which never leaves us.Even if we walk away.

MCC

"If you don't like the Church you just walk away, do your own thing. The Church's rules are only binding on those who chose to accept them."

That is simply not true when the church uses its influence to block equal civil marriage, contraception, respect for human rights, abortion etc for non catholics. If the rules where only inflicted on the faithful and only binding on them (is that an equivalent to sharia law) then I would have no problem. I would pity gay catholics though.

mscracker,

If I wanted to use the whole quote I would have used it and attributed it. If I had used the bit I did and attributed it it would have been fine to call me out on using things out of context. I did neither and the piece I used stands very well quite alone - as does everything else when all the divine references are taken out- even parts of the bible.

On your comment on baptism, are you saying that a child is indelibly marked a catholic before they can exercise free will and by the time the can chose it is too late to get rid of the mark. If they chose to become an atheist or a muslim they are still a catholic.

You guys crease me up sometimes.

Mcc,

Actually strike that last part of my response to you, you should have no power other than that to ask people to follow rules and no power to inflict laws or for them to be in anyway binding except by voluntary means which could be anulled by a passing thought.

@32:
I'm not calling out anyone.As an American it seemed fitting to provide the complete thought behind the quote.It's a beautifully worded speech worth reading in full if you have a moment.
And yes, the Catechism teaches: Baptism"seals the Christian with the indelible spiritual mark (character) of his belonging to Christ.No sin can erase this mark..."

I am well aware of the speech and without the divine references there is some good stuff in there. Why oh why did he ruin it ?

Is the catechism like a collection of Fatwas in Islam (ie the opinions of clerics in answers to questions)- is it divinely inspired like the bible or humanly flawed? It's just I never heard of this mark in the bible. I realise I was only brought up an anglican prod so we may not have been taught that bit of scripture.

@35 Dave:
From what I've read, the Gettysburg Address was originally written without "under God" but Mr. Lincoln added that at the time he gave the speech. So if you had been there in the 1860's & looked at his original notes you would have been correct.
There was a great quote attributed to Lincoln about how 90% of politicians give the other 10% a bad name. I think with the church scandals in the US you could reverse the quote to:10% of preachers/priests,etc give the other 90% a bad name.Except that I'm pretty sure the actual percentages would be even farther apart.I can't speak for Ireland but here there are a tiny percentage of priests/ministers making a bad name for the very decent majority who serve the community.
I think-but am not sure-that the Anglican Church has the same teaching re Baptism.We are very close in many ways.(The Anglicans kept the better music I think.)
Not everything in Catholic teaching is spelled out in the Bible.We have Tradition as well.The Catechism is based upon both I believe.

PS for Dave
I don't really trust Wikipedia but saw this under "Anglican Communion":

"Baptism is not only a sign of profession, and mark of difference, whereby Christian men are discerned from others that be not christened, but it is also a sign of Regeneration or New-Birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they that receive Baptism rightly are grafted into the Church; the promises of the forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed; Faith is confirmed, and Grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God."

"Signed & sealed" sounds pretty much like "indelible mark/character." Perhaps an Anglican could explain better. I like the wording, though. The Anglicans kept the better language, too.

Re #29, remind me, has Rupert Murdoch been charged with something? Oh yes, with owning Fox News and therefore hated by liberals everywhere. As always I stand by the rule of law - the police, the DPP, the courts - time will tell if Murdoch has done anything illegal.

Re #30 - yes, of course I believe in the indelible mark left by baptism, but if someone doesn't believe in that they can ignore it, walk away - in the same way I suppose that unionists in the North who are by law Irish citizens don't have to acknowledge that. The Church has no power to impose its views on its members if the members reject it. Even the strongest penalty, excommunication, is meaningless if it means nothing to you.

Re #31, in a democracy the people and their representatives take the decisions in law. If most people don't support gay marriage (as in almost every referendum where people have been consulted, including California) then that's the decision. Do you think NGOs such as the Church should have no right to comment, to lobby, to advise about public matters?

@Theo

try to make Kenny's speach look measured and diplomatic by comparison

The thing is, for those not actually standing shoulder to shoulder with the abusers, the speech looked pretty measured. As for diplomatic, well, diplomacy can include giving people enough rope to hang themselves, or in this case, nudge them towards an entirely predictable bout of petulance.

And regarding the comparison with the Corleones , well, I was probably being a bit over the top. I mean, if someone had suggested to Coppola he add a scene where a child abuser gets to officiate at one of his victims weddings, he'd have rejected it on the grounds of taste and decency.

Mccamleyc

Unionists in the North are entitled to Irish Citizenship - but have to claim it by free will to actually become one (by for instance getting a passport) and it can be renounced once taken. You see governments allow free will. So it's not really and indelible mark is it.

Also your view of democracy is flawed - it does not mean majority rule as we have a framework of human rights legislation to try and protect minorities from oppressive majorities (and from religions too) they are not foolproof but we are making headway.

You need to update your polls, the last California poll had 50% for equal marriage and 45% against with majority support in the under 50 year olds.

As far as the UK is concerned the Times (in 2009) their poll reported that a significant majority of the British public supported same-sex marriage; 61% agreed with the statement "Gay couples should have an equal right to get married, not just to have civil partnerships" while 33% disagreed. (in the under 35's it was 78%)

Another smaller poll in 2009 showed marriage as the most popular option of marriage, cp or no recognition.

But whatever the polls say the UK government may be forced into it by actions in the European court so it's not all about majorities.

As far as NGO's are concerned as long as they put forward credible evidence for their claims and they are not prejudiced and discriminatory then they should be listened to. I certainly do not regard supernatural claims as credible and I do not regard a concept of sin as a reason to create or maintain discrimination.

Dave - you don't have to claim citizenship - you have it by birth or descent. You have to apply for a passport of course but you have your citizenship already even if you never acknowledge it.

Most democracies, with the possible exception of northern Ireland, operate on the basis of majority rule. And human rights protections, which I accept, if they are genuine, come from our humanity, are only identified through a legal process which relies on majority rule. The Constitution was passed by majority rule and accession to international conventions is by Governments or a parliamentary vote based on majority rule. Being in a majority doesn't make you right of course, but that's how democracies decide things.

I was talking about real polls - proper referendums, not polls in newspapers.

Yes, MCC, Murdoch has done something wrong. In the same week that he was awarded the Papal gong, the following Sunday - Communications Sunday in the Catholic Church - we were asked to read out a letter at all Masses warning our parishioners about the gutter Press and what newspapers we allow into our homes.

The worst of all of those 'newspapers' were Murdoch's. What kind of message did that send out to our people? And if your criterion for good or bad behaviour is simply what does or doesnt break the law, you have the conscience of a spud.

You are unbelievable. Enda Kenny gives a speech which is being lauded around the world. You slaughter him. Rupert Murdoch is the head of an organisation which is being brought to book for criminal, let alone immoral, behaviour, and you fly to his defence.

mcc,

you need to have a look at the act passed in 2004.

"3.—Section 6 (inserted by section 3(1) of the Act of 2001) of the Principal Act is amended by—

(a) the substitution of the following subsection for subsection (1):

“(1) Subject to section 6A (inserted by section 4 of the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 2004), every person born in the island of Ireland is entitled to be an Irish citizen.”,

(b) the substitution of the following paragraph for paragraph (a) of subsection (2):

“(a) Subject to subsection (5), a person who is entitled under subsection (1) to be an Irish citizen shall be an Irish citizen from the date of his or her birth if—

(i) he or she does any act that only an Irish citizen is entitled to do, or

(ii) in the case of a person who is not of full age or who is suffering from a mental incapacity, any act is done on his or her behalf that only an Irish citizen is entitled to do.”,

People born in Northern Ireland are entitled to Irish Citizenship but only become Irish Citizens if they "he or she does any act that only an Irish citizen is entitled to do" which means register as Irish, get a passport, get a birth cert in the republic etc.

No foreign state can claim as citizens those of another jurisdiction without their consent.

You can dismiss polls all you like but these were all carried out by official polling organisations under legislated polling rules. Just because you don't like the answers or they don't have a papal seal does not invalidate them - you will lose this one amongst others.

@43:
I have friends whose grandparents had emigrated from Ireland to the US. They said they could be eligible for Irish citizenship through their grandparents. Is that still the law? Does Ireland allow dual citizenship? Thanks!

@43 RJB:
This was the first thing that showed up when I googled Communications Sunday:
https://www.scmo.org/articles/communications-sunday.html

It was a very nice message from the Bishop of Paisley, Scotland.

mscracker,

Ireland allows dual citizenship, with a few non serious requirements. Generally it is the US which frowns on them. The UK is not keen on them except for British/Irish citizenship.

mscracker

Yes, its a "nice" message, unfortunately mostly untrue and full of spin.

A week before his visit to Scotland, reps of the hierarchy doorstepped every parish begging the pp's to take more tickets. They couldnt get rid of them.

Its also good to see them put such a positive light on the visit. Given the lack of numbers who turned out, they made the excuse at the time that it had been badly organised and that's why the numbers were down.

Now, it would appear, it was a huge success.

As I posted at the time, one old lady was interviewed on Princes Street and was asked why she was there. She stated, "I am here as a mark of respect for his Office, however, Benedict has some serious questions to answer."

And not all Scottish Bishops would be so 'kind' to Benedict. One Bishop spent 25 years on ICEL translating Mass into English. Benny decided to throw all of that work down the toilet and plump for his own translation with absolutely no consultation with Cardinals, Bishops and certainly not, the people of God.

There is a growing reaction in Scotland as I write.

https://www.praytellblog.com/index.php/2011/04/25/scottish-priest-calls-for-open-discussio/

And just wait for the reaction in Ireland when this Mass is imposed on the people in November. Watch this space.

@47:
I can't comment on the situation in Scotland.I can only read about it.
Here in our diocese most parishes are looking forward to the new wording in the Missal & feel it's been a long time coming.

PS: Is there something found objectionable in the new translation? From what I can see it's simply a closer translation from the Latin & pretty much the same wording as in parts of the Mass in Spanish today.
I don't really understand why most of the Mass shouldn't by default be in Latin anyway.As a universal Church, a universal prayer language makes sense just in a practical sense. I understand there is nothing sacred about Latin so much as it just works historically & globally.

mscracker

Read the link I provided and you'll see the objections laid out there.

"From what I can see its simply a closer translation to the Latin." Are you a Latin scholar? How would you know what is closer to the Latin?

Maybe then you could tell us how "omnes" should be translated at the consecration, "all", "many" or "some"?

There is a lot that is extremely objectionable about the new translation, not least the sneaky, underhanded and bullying way it has been imposed.

mscracker

What is your diocese and who is your Bishop?

@50 RJB:
No, I'm no scholar but am familiar with the Latin used in the Mass.It's not rocket science. If it was I wouldn't get it.
Here's an explanation from the US Bishop's site that might deal with the question you raise about "many" & "all". I think they can answer your question better.
@50: You know it's a shame that folks can't have better communication on the internet but I've found it best to be prudent in sharing personal info online as far as location, etc. I wouldn't ask your's either.I think it should suffice to say that I live in the States.Best to be safe.

https://www.usccb.org/romanmissal/translating_sixquestions.shtml

In other Catholic church-related news, the Telegraph reports that there is a wave of resentment against the church rushing through Ireland. Secularist sentiment has its finest hour in the life of the republic so far.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ireland/8663451/Is-Ireland-divorcing-from-the-Catholic-Church.html

@53:
I appreciate the article link, & it was interesting reading,but would consider the source-the author.She has had a "wave of resentment" against the Church for the past 40 years or more from what I can see.
Some good points in her article, though. Priests are to be servants to others first.As all Christians are meant to be. When we forget that it's a quick slide downward.

mscracker

Sorry, I've looked through the whole link you provided and cant find Jesus speaking Latin anywhere.

Not telling me what diocese you belong to is "safe"? What are you frightened of, being narrowed down to a few million people?

@53:
PS: Would this be an article by the same author? In either case, she does write well.

https://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/apr/07/catholic-ireland-child-abuse

PK

I looked down the blog after that article and see a discussion on the Church's support for Fascist regimes. Very funny to see one poster on it claiming that the Church doesnt involve itself in politics.

@55 RJB:
At a Maronite Rite church you can find Him speaking Aramaic during the Consecration,though. That translation would be my choice if I were making decisions on the Missal.Which I'm not.

Perhaps the Irish government would prefer a Catholicism that reflects more humane values on rights & equality, as well as showing a greater capacity for tolerance & grace. Maybe the Vatican could be circumvented & a new Catholic Church set up in co-operation with the laity and government. There are many countries in the West who also feel the need for a fresh start and may be co-operative/open to the idea of bypassing the Vatican, requisitioning their property, and handing power back to a new, revitalised Catholic Church.

Ryan,

When I look up catholic in the dictionary I see words like all-embracing, liberal, having sympathies with all. Maybe if you get the Vatican to change the name of it's church then your idea of an all embracing church might be able to reclaim the word.

At the moment there are significant parts of western anglicanism which are more 'catholic' than the conservative catholic church as it is run at the minute. Maybe there are parts of the Catholic church which (if they could sort out a few theological differences) might find a better alliance with the anglicans.

I would suggest the conservative prods and catholics get together but they would be at each others throats (with love of course).

A rejuvenated church on the centre ground might have legs but the current model has both major groups of the christian faith being destroyed by their conservative hectoring which just does not fit in an ever more inclusive secularised democracy.

I make this observation as an outsider to both, but looking at it with a brand and marketing hat on it makes sense. I know it has it's difficulties but strategic restructuring is not meant to be easy.

MCC

Did you watch the CH4 documentary tonight on Rupert Murdoch?

"Beyond evil" was the concluding description of him. Will you be calling for your pals to take back the Papal Knighthood they awarded him?

For those of you who have a strong constitution, the following is a link to the Grand Jury Report on the clergy abuse of children (nearly 70 priests!!), and the cover up by their Hierarchy, in Philadelphia.

If you are like me, you might be able to get as far as page six. It might go some way to explaining the outrage I sometimes express at certain contributors on here.

https://www.philadelphiadistrictattorney.com/images/Grand_Jury_Report.pdf

Patsy McGarry in the Irish Times keeping the pressure up.

https://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2011/0728/1224301495730.html

@60 Dave:

I enjoyed reading your post.
The way it's been working here in the States is that the more conservative Anglicans/Episcopalians are more likely to join the Catholic Church & the more liberal Catholics do the reverse.So I suppose you could say that Anglicans & Catholics are coming together so to speak, but in differing ways.
I think it's a great pity we ever went separate ways.And referring back to the revised Roman Missal, I wish we'd had some Anglican input on the English wording.Even if the translation is closer to the original Latin it still sounds wooden.
Here's some links about the Anglican Use churches in America:

https://anglicanuse.org/
https://www.walsingham-church.org/site/Welcome.html

And on a lighter note...

https://www.joe.ie/news-politics/current-affairs/heil-y-offensive-taoiseach-compared-to-hitler-by-louth-church-0014444-1

RJB, The Louth pamphlet shows there's still very little awareness or understanding within some quarters of the Church to the impact their actions have had reminded me of this quote a few months ago in the NYTimes .The church still “seems not to have understood that the public opinion was turning extremely hostile to them.” The article was also quoted here aswell.

Ryan

One of the reasons I put the link above to the Philadelphia report was to remind everyone how horrifically these kids were treated - by priests. To instil in those who still dont get it, the devastation this causes. (There is so much more damage done because it is priests. Thats why Enda's speech was so powerful. He seemed to 'get it' totally.)

I think one of the other powerful, powerful moments re the Church in Ireland this year was an interview with Diarmud Martin, a few weeks ago.

Interviewer - "You must take great credit for what you did for the abused."

Diarmud - "Not at all. When you read their stories, and know what happened to them, everyone would do what I did."

The hierarchs did read their stories - and did nothing.

For me, public opinion shouldn't have even entered into it.

LSV;

"Are you really suggesting that the Vatican should NEVER be criticised by anyone under any circumstance?"

No, i'm not doing that, but Mr Kenny is grandstanding, and picking on people who he knows are unable to respond in kind. You are on your way to understanding the situation when you acknowledge that the Vatican has a certain "historical and theological pedigree". Say it quietly, but this pedigree might just conceivably be greater than that of the government of the Republic of Ireland - and i would argue that the immoderate tone of Kenny's speech is a neat illustration of this fact.

grokesx, no.39;

If it's all the same to you, i think i'll leave you to your little 1970s classic cinema retrospective.

Grokesx

Some might say that post # 68 proves the point you were making in # 39.

@RJB

You might say that, but I couldn't possibly comment.

And some might say that the last paragraph in your no.2 proves the point i was making @ no.32 in the 'open thread'.

Lol Theo, so you agree with the other 11 paragraphs in no 2?

Ryan

A rather "different" explanation to your question about Church awareness.

https://www.independentngonline.com/DailyIndependent/Article.aspx?id=20640

Rjb, Interesting link- well there is an upside, If events in Ireland get a little too much, Mcc can always move to Nigeria ;)

Enda Kenny’s comments in relation to the Roman Catholic Church have a familiar ring about them, particularly to those of us who have studied events surrounding the Protestant Reformation. In fact, one could almost hear the likes of Wycliffe, Luther, Calvin and Knox shout “Amen” from the grave.

It has taken many years, but is the penny beginning to drop concerning the true nature of this Antichristian organisation that has held the peoples of Ireland in the grip of Popery, Priestcraft and superstition for centuries.

Having usurped the simple faith promoted by St Patrick, is it possible that we could now see time called on the Roman Church, with the emergence of a New Ireland truly united once again, in the original Christian faith of our forefathers?

gracealone,

If the Irish people manage to shrug off the yoke of catholic slavery, they would be incredibly daft to embrace another set of priestcraft and superstitions. Best make the break and separate church and state and then let religion live or die based on merit instead of state support and deference.

If religions want to fight for peoples wallets (oops I mean souls) let them do it on the open market and compete with soap powders, with he same rules and regulations on advertising. Lets see them provide verifiable claims for their adverts,

You can't be part of the Catholic Church if you're not in communion with the bishop of Rome - you are Peter and on this rock I will build my church. The fantasy of a national Catholic Church has been tried at various times - always ends in heresy - like Anglicanism.

RJB - repeating the reality of abuse is fine - but it doesn't allow you to then simply blame someone who isn't responsible. It doesn't make the nuncio responsible when he wasn't; it doesn't make the Pope responsible.

This is quite a useful and calm blog on the Cloyne Report - not my own lest I be accused of self promotion. https://thethirstygargoyle.blogspot.com/2011/07/how-many-questions-on-cloyne-report.html

There's another interesting post where he calculates, based on reports of the prevalence of abuse, that there are approximately 360,000 people in Ireland who were told about abuse and who didn't report it to the authorities. Presumably the State will be commencing a massive prison building programme to deal with this.

MCC

You have never 'gotten' it and probably never will. Had you shown the slightest willingness to debate reasonably and acknowledge wrong doing by our Church, I'd listen to you now. You haven't.

Your motive from the start has been to be an apologist for a Vatican which is fastly becoming utterly discredited.

Enda Kenny's speech demolished every post you have made on here on the subject of abuse. No wonder you were miffed by it.

and the same to you to RJB. You presume everyone who refuses to accept every allegation supports child abuse, or denies it took place, or denies it was covered up. The motives of many are very questionable on this topic - they care only about how much they can damage the Catholic Church and could care less about the great majority of abuse that has nothing to do with priests. The very same people who would attack the Pope will happily give out condoms to children, no questions asked. Herr Kenny's disgraceful speech demolished nothing but any sense of reason, objectivity or truth.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

mccamleyc,

I think the catholic church needs no help to damage it, it is doing fine all by itself.

"I think the catholic church needs no help to damage it, it is doing fine all by itself. "

In the same vein, I do have sort of a negatively motivated appreciation for Ratzinger. He's arguably doing more to make the corrupt power structure of the Catholic church crumble than Hitchens, Dawkins, etc have done.

Sorry, (again), Mod. Just thought it was ironic that MCC used the term "Herr" for the Prime-Minister.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Here's the rub. When Mr. Kenny has a peaceful resolution of confrontation between superpowers-armed-to-the-teeth-with-nuclear-weapons (or two) under his belt, he might be in a position to launch scathing, sweeping, sanctimonious tirades against the Vatican.

And when the Pope sends Law back to the States, sacks even one Bishop who covered up, disbands the Legionaires, puts into practice Vatican II, - for starters - Enda Kenny might not have to make such a speech.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

LOL Ok I'll try again ;o) If the Mod's don't approve this time maybe they can explain which bits they object to? This was published in The Economist a year ago, but is still relevant -

...If you preach absolute moral values, you will be held to absolute moral standards. Hence, for Catholics and outsiders alike, the church hierarchy’s inability to deal with the issue is baffling.
...Applying modern standards to conduct long ago is tricky. The hierarchy in the past often saw paedophilia not as a crime with victims but as a sin that endangered the perpetrator’s soul: along the lines of alcoholism, or pilfering church funds. A priest who “erred” deserved a rebuke, pastoral attention (perhaps) and a fresh start. The dreadful damage done to the victims of the abuse was not appreciated, or was ignored.

A second delusion—still lingering in some church circles—was the conflation of paedophilia and homosexuality. A sexual relationship between a priest and a teenage boy was regarded as wrong, just as a liaison between two priests would be. But it did not count as a revolting abuse of trust.

...Some add celibacy to the list. Those cut off from family life may not appreciate the horror parents feel about abuse...

...As in so many scandals, the cover-up compounds the original sin. The guilty secrets of the past must be flushed out. And bishops must admit their part in them. It is odd that an institution founded on honesty and penitence should struggle so. Today’s Catholic leaders might also recall that clerical abuses of power, defended by legalistic quibbling, greatly angered an itinerant preacher in Palestine two millennia ago.

Re 80 "The motives of many are very questionable on this topic - they care only about how much they can damage the Catholic Church"

As Rjb says, the irony of referring to Enda Kenny as Herr... The Church is engaged in a process of alienating & isolating itself, making it difficult to create conditions for rapprochement. When Mcc & Theo defend the Church for some reason it translates out badly- maybe it hardens outside perception of the Church rather than helping defend it. Denial has a dark side- being in denial for too long prevents you from effectively dealing with issues that require action, Rjb realises this and his approach has made a difference to me at least. My view of the Church is less jaundiced because of him and has helped me appreciate the diversity within the Catholic Church. Perhaps by acknowledging the situation openly has a way of engaging external public opinion in a postive way. I'm not sure if anyone else feels this ,but it's like many within the Church are putting themselves first & forgetting Christ in the word Christian. It goes to prove if you give people a way of protecting their own interests and welfare at the expense of society as a whole (or in this case the Church) they will.

On the other hand, if you believe in God, you could say it's being celestially dismantled because its broken some fundamental rule

Ryan

Another excellent and very reasoned post.

I'm convinced that much of MCC and Theo's posts are ultimately based on.... fear.

They are terrified that any acknowledgement that their authority figures arent who they believe them to be, will shatter their belief in the existence of God, put bluntly. Everything has to be kept absolutely clear, safely and neatly pigeon holed. Classic religion as a crutch.

They have invested too much in this structure for it to be found dented, let alone suffering meltdown.

(Dont know if you remember the day you found out that there was no Santa Claus or the period where you discovered that your dad wasn't in fact the greatest human being who ever walked the planet. Something similar going on here.)

So they will desperately cling to this structure. Clericalism. As a priest once said, "When a priest is ordained, he sees it as the beginning of a process. When a cleric is ordained, he sees it as the conclusion. He has arrived."

Having experienced this 'clericalism' first hand since the age of 11, I know what often lies behind it. It gives the image of humility - but under the veneer, its about power.

They are not there to learn from their parishioners, they are there to 'tell' their parishioners. They are deeply insecure (the collar and soutain helps to disguise that.) They are extremely immature, sexually, emotionally, psychologically. The little mention sexuality will get in their 'formation' will be in the most negative of terms - temptations of the devil, etc.. - which will lead to untold damage for them and for others.

Today, they have, as you point out, closed the lines of communication. No one can tell them anything. The whole thrust of Jesus' teaching was the Good News which we were to go out and spread - not a doctrine or a list of sins - but Good News. Go out to the highways and byways, bring people to the wedding, welcome people in. The polar opposite to the "This is ours - get out!", pettiness displayed by Catholics on here, a pettiness which seems to be company policy for the Vatican at the moment.

They arent actually seeking God, especially not a God who will take you places you would rather not go. They are looking for and attempting to maintain, a comfort zone.

So if their is a God, and if his son is Jesus, then it would actually make a lot of sense that the present set up is being "celestially dismantled."

What do you mean there's no Santa Claus? What?

RJB - the funny thing is that all the things you accuse me of are the very faults you have. You're mind is utterly closed to the idea that the Pope is not the bogey man you've made him - that he wasn't a Nazi, that he never covered up abuse, that he is utterly committed to protecting children. Just for one second try considering the actual evidence, not the media spin, not the Association of Catholic Priests' liberal agenda. Open your mind. You're like the pharisees always looking for the worst interpretation of Jesus' behaviour. You read bits of the gospel and ignore the bits you don't like. You want the story of bringing in people to the marriage feast but not the bit where the guy gets thrown out for not being dressed properly. You love the story of the woman caught in adultery but forget that Jesus told her to go and sin no more. You love the Good News but forget the hard news. You have no belief in a Church established by Christ. What you call "structures" Christ and St Paul called his body. You want to take advantage of the abuse crisis to create a Church in your own image. Well, my friend, it will not work; we have the assurance of Christ himself that the gates of hell will not prevail.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Re 92 "Open your mind. You're like the pharisees always looking for the worst interpretation of Jesus' behaviour". Oh come now Mcc, In clear conscience, you can't honestly feel comfortable with that statement. Yes, RJB has the 'temerity' to complain, but he's standing up for the spirit & words of Christ, not the institution & apparatus of an insentient organisation. If he's able to communicate to people outside of the faith who, in turn, are receptive to the sincerity of his words- knowing he speaks from the heart- he's doing a better job at promoting a positive, humane side to Catholicism than we're used to seeing from the Vatican PR machine.

As RJB says, the Church's métier is Power. Power & Influence at any cost. There's one easy way to resolve which side of the arguement has more legitimacy- without any need for words. All you have to do is look at the Pope, the Bishops & what they wear. This gives us a clearer answer than any words can offer. With what we know of Christ, would he really respond, "hey you look great, love those golden threads, that silk, those jewels.. you really understood what I was saying 20,000 or so months back, you really get it.. " Instead, perhaps, he'd tear their robes off, telling them to go from their modern day 'Domus Aurea' & minister to the sick, poor & destitute, advocating the Vatican be used as a hospital or sanctuary for the most vulnerable in society.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Ryan;

Politicians and other secular leaders wear smart suits because they want to be taken seriously. So does the Church - and so do all religious leaders, so they wear a distinctive garb of one kind or another. It is not appropriate for the Pope or Bishops, for example, to wear rags and beg alms for themselves - but they are frequently engaged in begging alms on behalf of the world's poorest people - and you would find that many of the priests and religious sisters and brothers "on the ground" are dressed very simply - though also "respectably". Without the slightest fear of contradiction, i can tell you that no organisation on earth even comes close to providing as much ministry or treatment "to the sick, poor & destitute...or sanctuary for the most vulnerable in society" as does the Roman Catholic Church. But don't expect RJB to agree with any of this; according to no.91, he thinks he has a divine mandate to assist in the "celestial dismantling" of his own Church.

Anyone with a sincere interest in the welfare of children, it seems to me, would be passionately upholding and extolling the merits of Marriage, between one man and one woman, as providing the best possible (i didn't say 'perfect') haven of security and stability in which children are loved and may learn to love. In Christianity, the model for this 'ideal' is provided by the Holy Family of Nazareth. What a minority of priests have done is, frankly, infernal, but all the attention is on them, when the abuse of children within dysfunctional and wrecked families continues on a shocking scale - the more so in countries where 'morality' is increasingly seen as an eccentricity.

Theo - I think perhaps the dresscode is meant to infer some kind of social status & exhibition of superiority.
To the countless faithful who are in your Church but are at the other end of the spectrum- like the signees of the Australian petition, RJB etc, Catholicism is about living in Christ, not about being slaves to the whims & culture of the Vatican. RJB is a defender of Catholicism & in that role he succeeds, he is not however a defender of Vatican administrations.

Re your 97, whilst I agree with you in many ways, it's high time people learn to appreciate the meaning of 'Love'. A stable home environment between 2 people who love, respect & know how to communicate with each other is the best environment for anyone to live in. There are plenty of heterosexual couples who are unable to have children, yet the love they may have for each other is validated by society. Society in the West is being asked to peacefully make adjustments other parts of the world are incapable of making- an acceptance of diversity- whether it's a persons colour, race, orientation or religion. Christianity has piloted the way to a truely humane society in the west. Human beings just have difficulty living up to Christ's love and inclusiveness

"Stop sinning or you are all going to Hell." - The Good News according to some.

"Thou art Peter.... and the gates of the underworld...." That's all Theo and MCC hace got. All the beautiful words of Christ are subjugated to this verse. It is used by them to justify the most outrageous 'Lording it over.'

Theophane,

Are you suggesting that no abuse goes on within a one man one woman family and that "abuse of children within dysfunctional and wrecked families continues on a shocking scale" is for all other families.

It's hard to tell when the insinuations are so veiled to get past the moderators. What you have said is truly insulting to the many same sex and single parent families which exist and, based on evidence, your statements have no validity. They have prejudice and nastiness but no truth. Is this what the evangelical alliance called deceit.