Lost Childhood, Lost Children

A few days ago at home with my family for an evening we sat down to watch a movie together; we decided to watch Netflix's first foray into film-making, Beasts of No Nation. We were riveted to the screen. 

For those who have not seen it the movie deals with the issue of child soldiers in African conflicts through the experiences of one little boy. Filmed in Ghana, the movie is set in an unnamed country torn apart by corruption and civil war. The boy, Agu, witnesses the murder of most of his family by government troops as he flees into the jungle to save his life. There he is captured by a rebel group and is trained to fight in the conflict that is developing around him. The movie is harrowing and has a number of disturbing scenes, but it is powerful. The acting is extraordinary and the cinematography is marvellous. 

The movie is a work of art, but it is first and foremost a expose of one of the most serious abuses of children in the world - their direct incorporation into the violence and horror of war as combatants. One critic called the movie "an emotionally and spiritually punishing experience" and it is. Agu (wonderfully played by Abraham Attah) suffers what no child should suffer. We witness the destruction not just of a childhood, but of a child. When it is all over for him Agu can no longer see himself as a human being only as a beast - what he has seen, what he has done, has killed him inside. Agu's trauma is not fiction, it is representative of the experience of thousands of children today.

Too often we hear of conflicts in Africa, Asia, South America, but they seem generic: the media reports from the battle fields, we tut, we say how awful it is, but then move on, Those caught in the middle of it all cannot move on, the horror continues and they suffer, and the ones who suffer the most are the children, as usual. When adults seek to take control, to seize power, to create utopia, it is the children who suffer, be it in the jungles, the city streets, the abortion clinics, dysfunctional families.

A few years ago another movie was released called The Kids Are Alright. It related what could only be called the dysfunctional and selfish relationships between adults and in spite of it all the kids in the middle of it all were fine: well adjusted, mature and accepting. But you see the kids are not alright, even if they appear to cope, they are lost - they look to adults to provide stability and safety, but when the adults are self-obsessed, intent on "self-fulfillment" and pleasure or ideology, there is no stability; there is only the constant needs of those who should be making sacrifices for their children. Beasts of No Nation deals with political conflict, but, like many other situations in the world today it reveals how children become pawns in the concerns of adults, and children suffer, they are traumatized, they lose their childhood, perhaps even lose themselves. 

As The Truth About Pius XII Is Slowly Coming Out, Cornwell Goes For Pius X

I was not going to comment on the latest offering from John Cornwell, but I want to link to a great article by Ed Peters which will be a handy resource for dealing with another batch of lies about the Church, our faith and our popes.

Cornwell, famous, or infamous, for his inaccurate account of Pope Pius XII's activities during World War II in Hitler's Pope, has now moved on to St Pius X and is connecting him with child abuse.  How so, you might ask?  Well he maintains that Pope Pius X facilitated the abuse of children by requiring children from the age of seven to go to confession.  I know, it's crazy, but there will be people out there who will latch on to this and run with it in the hope of having yet another stick to beat the Catholic Church. It is also a snide attack on the sacrament of confession, a sacrament much despised by many "progressives" in the Church.

Anyway, here is the link to Ed Peter's response to Cornwell and the Daily Mail which published extracts from his book.  Cornwell's hypothesis is, as I suppose we have come to expect, littered with inaccuracies. Sadly I note what Dr Peters says at the beginning of his piece: "It always takes longer, sometimes much longer, to correct mistakes than it takes to make them".  How true.  As Cornwell laughs all the way to the bank yet again, we Catholics are left for years trying to undo the lie.

Of course attacks on Pope St Pius are not new.  Liberals and "progressives" have been complaining about him for decades for his clarification and condemnation of modernism, the mother of religious relativism.  Even as recent as when I was in seminary a theology lecturer was making snide remarks against him. Interestingly Pius has a good deal in common with Pope Francis - both came from humble backgrounds, and both lived a ascetic, simple life embracing radical poverty.   

Later Finally Comes!

What a week it has been! I have been in overdrive the last few days and catching news in snatches.  As for blogging: later, later, later, and later never comes!  I wonder how some other blogging priests do it - they must be great at multi-multi-tasking (sic).

Well the spectre of child abuse continues to raise its ugly head in Ireland.  This week the Church's internal auditing office released reports into four dioceses and three congregations: not good reading.  Some have not learned the lessons of the last two decades, and in some cases incredible naivety has been displayed by those who should know better.  To be honest it has been known for decades, centuries even, that sexual contact between an adult and a minor was wrong. 

That said, the bias in the media was made very clear again as news programmes spent a long time talking about the reports and getting reactions in comparison with the paltry coverage they gave to the recent report into the State's handling of child care and the deaths of 200 children in State care in recent times: ministers got off light as did the organisations involved.  But then we expect that now, double standards.

Fr Benedict Groeschel has also hit the headlines for unfortunate remarks.  I know Fr Benedict and he was a great help to me in discerning my vocation.  He is one of the holiest people I have ever met, a man who has spent his entire life in the service of the poor and downtrodden seeking nothing for himself but to serve Christ in the most poor and unwanted.  Few people can claim to have done that.  His books and talks have helped millions of Catholics and non-Catholics come closer to God, and as it seemed the Church was in meltdown and the lunatics taking over, he reminded us of the hope Christ offers and encouraged us to take up our baptismal responsibilities to live and proclaim the faith.  I remember one liberal priest once described him to me as "the most dangerous man I know" - indeed he was, he was pulling the rug from under the dissenters! 

Fr Benedict has not been well for some time, and as a saint (which I believe he is) he has tremendous compassion for all, even the most heinous of criminals and sinners.  Living in a culture where we are to understand that forgiveness and compassion are not to be shown to certain people because of their crimes, Fr Benedict's compassion will not be understood.   As Christians, though, we must remember Our Lord died alongside criminals and ate with sinners and, horror of horrors, forgave them, scandalising polite society.  And a note to liberals: as Christians when we speak of compassion it does not mean tolerance, support or condoning sins or crimes; I understand that secular progressives may have a different definition.  Given all he has been through in recent years, prudence failed him here and innocent people were hurt by his remarks.  He has apologised and withdrawn from broadcasting.  We should pray for all involved.

One of Fr Benedict's great themes was that of death and what happens when the last breath is squeezed out of us: where do we go?  Well there is a very good article by Fr Alexander Lucie-Smith on this.  As a priest I frequently meet Catholics who do not believe in hell or purgatory and who honestly believe that when we die there is no judgement but immediate entry into heaven.  There, surrounded by family and friends, they will continue the hobbies they had here on earth and live life their way.  A sort of Valhalla or happy hunting grounds, or indeed pastel-coloured clouds floating around the universe - the sort of thing we saw in the movie The Lovely Bones. 

Fr Lucie-Smith experiences the same issues concerning the afterlife and the last things.   The great presumption of these times is that we are all going to heaven the minute we die regardless of how we lived or served God.  This presumption is having devastating effects - people no longer see the need to live moral lives or worship God since we are all going to heaven, so it makes no difference what we do.  The irony here, of course, is that if this is true, then everyone ends up in the same blissful existence all together, even those our society spends so much time demonising.  Imagine it, permissive secular socialists on the same cloud as fundamentalist conservative traditionalist Catholics forever and ever and ever.......  That might get them thinking!

And finally, how do make pro-abortion, anti-God Democrats uncomfortable?  You just pray!  Here is the video of Cardinal Dolan's prayer at the end of the US Democrats National Convention. It was a pointed prayer, as they knew it would be - hence their initial refusal to invite him.  It was a very interesting convention - their pro-abortion and pro gay marriage agenda has now been set in stone and they began their discussions by taking God out of the equation, only to put him back in, though most at the convention seem to boo the reinsertion.  Strange goings on. 

Anyway, over to Cardinal Dolan.  My favourite bit is at 3.55 when he prays for Romney and Ryan, at that moment the camera is on a lady who seems to be expressing a difficulty at the idea of praying for the enemies, or at least that's how I read it.

And here's another video from the convention exposing the double standard that is at the heart of the so-called pro-choice position.

"Only Have Faith"

Watch this space!  After all the abuse scandals of the past twenty years, is there about to be a subtle u-turn concerning the legitimacy of paedophilia?

We know that in the Sixties and Seventies various organisations in the West, including some here in Ireland were working towards the normalisation of paedophilia in society.  The American Man Boy Love Association was one of the most prominent of these organisations.  To put it in official language, the aim of these associations was to reduce, or get rid of, the age of consent so as to enable inter-generational sexual contact.  Such opinions were uttered as recently as last year here in Ireland. It was the abuse scandals in the Church which led to a stalling of these organisations lobbying: the public were rightly horrified, so the climate was not favourable to lobbyists.  However, are they getting the campaign cranked up again?

Here is an article on CNN's website by James Cantor asking if paedophiles deserve sympathy?  It is an article looking at the nature-nurture debate.  Chelsea Schilling offers a few reflections on the article here.  The question one might ask: if they are saying someone is born that way, can we assume, then, that it is wrong?  If people begin to answer that question in the affirmative, then interested parties may well be laying the foundation for the new "civil rights issue of this generation".  Watch this space.  We may soon find ourselves trying to argue against the tide of those who believe "minor-attracted" people should be allowed to live as they see fit.

In related news, here's a good article by Michael Kelly on the abuse crisis in Ireland - how canon law was not the problem - it was not to blame for the Church in Ireland's pitiful response to child abuse, but rather its being ignored.   It was the liberal attitude that rules and laws do not matter anymore that created a climate in which a false view of love and compassion neutralised the Church's strict laws and punishments due to offenders. 

And here's another example of secularists's tolerance with regard to those who disagree with them.  Jane Pitt, Brad Pitt's mother, is pro-life and pro-marriage, as are many millions of Americans. She expresses her opinion, as is her right in a democracy, but she is attacked, reviled and even threatened, and the media hang her out to dry and paint her as a bigot.   Jane said that she will not be voting for Barack Obama because he is pro-gay marriage and pro-abortion (which he is) and she advised Christians not to dismiss Mitt Romney because he is a Mormon (which is correct and fair).   Journalism worthy of Pravda during the darkest days of Soviet oppression.

I was in a book store yesterday and I saw the pornographic novel Fifty Shades of Grey was number one in the store's bestseller chart.  I have heard a few debates about the novels and it seems some of our secular feminists have no problem with them - the books tell the story of what is, in all intents a purposes, an abusive relationship in which a man uses a woman for his own pleasure.  Some would say it is not abusive since the woman consents: well, that's the subject of the debates.  Pia de Solenni has a few interesting points to make on this issue.

And here is an interesting article on democracy, tyrants and the role of constitutions in keeping public order.  In recent years we have come to see constitutions are pliable - they can be changed.  Of course they can be amended; but as they are, we need to be careful and ask the simple question: in changing parts of a constitution are we undermining the whole?  If, as Fr Schall in this article points out, a constitution is there to help keep public order, can we constantly subject it to human whims which may, in the end, create disorder and chaos?  Have we not been a little flippant with the constitution in Ireland in recent years?  The present government has initiated a constitutional reform process in which a number of amendments will be considered among them gay marriage and the abolition of the upper house of parliament (this, I think, is a bad idea too - reform the Senate, make it more democratic, but do not abolish it - we need an upper chamber to keep an eye on the lower).

Fr Schall also reminds us of what Plato and Aristotle teach us - something which is undeniably true today because we can see it happening before our eyes: "[A] tyrant arises out of a democracy when the citizens have little or no inner principle of order other than what they will for themselves. The tyrant becomes the “leader of the people” and, finally, their master. He can impose on them his cure for their well-being. But he is seen as a savior because the people, no longer in contact with the rationale of their own tradition, have little else in their souls with which to judge him. Hence, the loyalty and enthusiasm [to] follow the “leader.”" The sidelining of religion to the private sphere coupled with the establishment of an secular "church" and a selfish concentration on individualism and personal desires is a perfect breeding ground for tyrants.

And today is the feast of St Benedict, patron of Europe.   A man who helped preserve the Christian faith in Europe, and the best of European culture and civilisation with it, he is a worthy patron of these times.  We pray that he will watch over all of us and help us in our needs; given the issues above, we certainly need his intercession.  One thing the Holy Patriarch teaches us is that we must never lose hope. Looking at the attack on the Church, and indeed on what is best in humanity, I see the devil at work, and he seems to be desperate.  He must know something great is coming, a great flowering of faith, and he is doing what he can to stop it.  As followers of Christ we must always remember that the victory is already won.  So we must not be afraid and we must have confidence.

Here's a video on Pope Benedict's visit to the tomb of St Benedict in 2009 - the Holy Father has some interesting things to say:

Irish State Fails Children

If there is one issue which reveals the double standard which is at the heart of modern Irish secular society it is the area of child abuse.  For the last number of years the Catholic Church has been torn to shreds in the media over her appalling recording on the care of children by some in the Church. Much of this was deserved, though at this stage the continued attacks are more of an ideological nature than righteous indignation. 

But compare this with the treatment the media give the state and its institutions when their record of appalling failures in the care of children is exposed.  Yes, a front page article, but where is the hysteria?  Where is the righteous indignation?  Where are the politicians demanding retribution?  Where are the resignations?   It is a very different affair.  We have people speaking calmly on television and radio, politicians in government wringing their hands and promises of implementing recommendations.  The item may be given first billing in news reports, but we then move on to something else, unlike news bulletins following the release of the Ryan and Murphy reports which dominated the bulletins and had teams of journalists on the job. 

For readers who do not know the Irish state's history of child care read this report in The Irish Times which details the publication of a report on the issue, a report which has been due out for a long time. Children have died in state care - over a hundred dying various unnatural deaths in recent times.  Children have disappeared without a trace - still missing, and yet self-righteous Ireland picking over the corpse of the Catholic Church barely raises an eyebrow.  Why?    As priests and religious sisters are named and shamed (legitimately if they are offenders), those in the HSE and other government departments hide behind anonymity, keep their jobs and no one is any the wiser.  Why?

A number of years ago we had a high profile case in which a young girl sued the state to allowed go to England to have an abortion.  She won and with the help of the then Health Board went on her merry way to an abortion clinic.  Only it was not as merry as we had been led to believe: we learned only recently that the girl did not want an abortion; that her parents did not consent to it - the girl was underage; yet officials in the then Health Board took it upon themselves to decide that an abortion was needed.  The girl was devastated when she realised what had happened her: "Where is my baby?"  she pleaded after the abortion.  And where are those state employees?  Why have they not been called to account and put behind bars not only for the murder of an innocent baby, but the abuse of young pregnant girl who did not know what they were doing to her.

And yet self-righteous secular Ireland - modern, "mature" Ireland, picking over the corpse of the "evil Catholic Church" barely raises an eyebrow.  But there is much more.  As the Church is condemned for her failures in area of child care, the state's part in this is airbrushed.  Yes, we had token expressions of regret, but if you examine the situation you see that more than such expressions are necessary.  In many cases the state dumped children on the religious orders and told them to look after them. Yes they provided funding, but it was paltry, not enough to feed a canary never mind look after growing children.

A number of sisters involved in the work told me that state officials would arrive at the door with a child, or a family in tow and basically tell the nuns or brothers that they had to look after them.  The children were abandoned by the state, put out of the way and burden fell on the Church to look after them.  These congregations, contrary to secular accusations, did not have a lot of money - they struggled to make ends meet.  Yes, unlike the state, the congregation had lots of dedicated staff who worked for nothing - religious who did not get a salary.  Let's remember the innocent, hard working religious who never harmed a child but devoted every waking moment trying to provide food, clothes, heat, education and some affection with inadequate resources. It was not always successful, and some of these religious were not naturally affectionate and some were struggling with "mother's vocations", so there were difficulties.  I think we can say that the Church has taken a beating for the state in recent years, it is a pity that politicians do not realise this: as priests and religious are made pariahs, the state slips out of the equation quite conveniently.

What is most interesting in all of this is that we have a Children's Rights referendum coming up in the Autumn. In this referendum the citizens of this mighty Republic will be asked to give the state more powers to protect children, to take them into care and leave parents with lesser rights.  The media and secular groups are all in favour of this.  Now, will we hear much bashing of the state over this recent report?  Will the media take the risk of even planting in people's minds a doubt: that this referendum may need to be defeated because the state has an appalling record of child care?  Well, I think we can all work that one out for ourselves.

Irish Government Goes Ahead With Attack On Religious Freedom

A quick post, breaking my silence during this very busy week.  All going well at the Congress, but we are kept going - my producer is working us hard!    Continuity, interviews, vox pop!  I'm doing introductions in my sleep!   

I see Minister for Justice Alan Shatter is going ahead with his Bill - officially The Criminal Justice (Withholding of Information on Offenses Against Children and Vulnerable Persons) Act, which will make it a criminal offence for a priest not to break the Seal of Confession.  Well, we shall see how things turn out.  For one thing we priests will not break the Seal, end of story: orthodox and dissident priests will be united on that one.  Put us in jail, drag us through the media, we won't do it.  We abhor the abuse of children, but we cannot break the Seal, to do so would violate the sacrament. 

This move is a direct attack on the Catholic faith - it goes against the Constitutional protection to freedom of religion, so if Mr Shatter wants to make a move against a priest he will find himself facing a Constitutional challenge and, listening to some of my friends in legal circles, he will most likely lose.  I personally think the Minister knows this is non runner from the start, I believe he is posing and wants to be seen to be getting back at the Church for her failures.  But to revert to religious persecution: well, Mr Shatter should know better.

One interesting question arises: will the President be able to sign it?  If it offends the Constitution's protection of religious freedom, President Higgins will have to refer it to the Supreme Court to be tested, and it may well be thrown out.  Given that the President is Labour, however, he may not refer it since Labour is pushing this legislation, so it may come down to a challenge should a priest be prosecuted.

William Oddie has an interesting take on it: he welcomes the legislation, believing that it might help in the renewal of the Church.  One commentor in the combox of Oddie's article points out that a priest may be set up - that is true.  Would our government stoop so low?  Probably not.  Would our media?  Well, I'm not so sure there.  Having observed some reporters from the mainstream media (and one in particular), I'm not impressed with them and would expect anything.

Well, time for that novena to St John Nepomuk.  I knew the statue I bought a few years ago would come in handy. 

Jumping On The Bandwagon?

A quick post on an item which has grabbed the headlines over the last few days - another accusation made against the Church.  This time she is being accused of castrating ten boys in the Netherlands in the 1950's.  The usual suspects are irate again.

However, all is not what it seems: the original New York Times article was not, what you might say, generous with the truth, it seems the situation is a little more complicated, and the Church's role not as presented.  Here's what Tim Stanley of The Telegraph unearthed.  Another case of jumping on the bandwagon to bash the Church?

A Tired Priest Scribbles........

We have had a very long day today: I'm quite tired and still have some stuff to look over for tomorrow's recording sessions.  We started the season, so the worst is over: we are into it.   The members of production team are very professional and helpful, so we are being well looked after.  Our producer is happy with today's work, so that's good.  The staff in the dining room are wonderful: lovely Rosie who has fed us every time we come here is as happy and genteel as ever.  There is a new chef, Hernandez, and boy he is good: we won't starve.

The new season is called Forgotten Heritage: Europe and Her Saints.  We start with the six patrons of Europe, and then devote ten other programmes to notable European Saints. Not all the important ones are there: in order to ensure that most areas of human life are represented we had to leave some out. We hope viewers will find the new season interesting.

We had dinner with Fr Mitch Pacwa  (always a pleasure) and he gave us some wonderful insights into a number of contemporary issues.  We will be his guests on his weekly live television show on Wednesday evening (7pm US Central time), so if you have nothing else to do, switch on.

A quick surf around the net reveals some very good stories: the Council of Europe has ruled that euthanasia should remain illegal throughout Europe: that is a wonderful judgement, and it may effect the practice in Switzerland and Holland. Hopefully they will have to close shop.  

According to the latest count 93 US bishops have spoken out against Obama's bill: that too is good. Will it stop Obama's plans?  We shall see.  For my American readers, here is a petition calling for Obama to rescind the HHS mandate.

An interesting story from Ireland: the ACP are seeking to help nuns who have been wrongly accused.  This short article relates how innocent sisters are being forced to admit to abuse they never actually committed. That is no surprise - false allegations have been made about innocent parties, and unfortunately, given the current climate, it is easier for superiors to go with the allegation rather than challenge it.  I have little time for the ACP, but they are right in what they are trying to do here, and they deserve credit for that.  In fact, they are doing what others should have done long ago. 

Fr Barron has some interesting things to say about Obama's attack on religious freedom: there are a few points worth noting as we observe the way things are going in Ireland.

Back to work, and then beddie byes!  Night, night!

Sitting Ducks

The Fr Reynolds case is still foremost in the minds of many.  There is a very good article by John Allen on the false accusations made against Fr Reynolds.  A number of points are worth noting.  First, Fr Reynolds was able to use science to prove that he was not an abuser - the vast majority of innocent priests who are accused have no recourse to such proof and so will forever live under suspicion even when acquitted by a court. 

Allen also notes that no senior figure in the Church went to the priest's defence - it was down to the ACP to help him prove himself innocent.  It has been said by some that priests are abandoned by their bishops once an accusation is made. I know of one priest who was given a few hours to "get out" of his home, take off his clerical garb and was not allowed know the nature of the accusations against him for a number of weeks.   All of these offend natural justice, never mind the law of charity imposed on Christians by our Saviour.  We understand bishops around the world are doing their best in trying to deal with this crisis, but I think they may need to do more for priests to ensure the above accusation against them does not prove to be true.

I understand, and fully accept, proper procedures must be followed, but perhaps we need to look at those procedures and see if they allow the accused their basic rights.  Perhaps we have swung too far in the opposite direction.  And if we have, why have we?  Is it to ensure children are protected, or to be seen to be taking accusations seriously?   After all, even the greatest murderers and serial killers in history were allowed their rights under the law and a fair trial.  Why not priests?  To ask such a question seems unacceptable in these times, and indeed portayed by some as offensive to victims, as if the appeal to truth and justice was in some way an attempt to deny what has happened.  It is not, but justice, truth and charity are for all.

Reading the comments beneath Allen's article, I was struck by one:

"I am an old priest, and every priest I talk to awaits the day when there is some accusation and his life as a priest is over. A colleague was accused, denies the accusation, and was informed by a canon lawyer that "in this climate" he is as good as dead."

What Father here says is true.  The same sentiments are expressed by a Donegal priest in his homily yesterday, as reported by The Irish Times.  Every single one of us know we are sitting ducks.  Antagonise a parishioner, even preach a part of the Gospel that some do not want to hear, and you could be accused to punish you or get you out of the way.  It makes little difference if the accusation is obviously false, you are destroyed, and the false accuser knows that they will never be punished even if they are found out: for them it is a win-win situation.

As John Allen rightly points out, destroying innocent priests does not do justice to genuine victims, and taking the easy way out by accepting unquestioningly that all accusations are true does not help them either.  These things only contribute to a climate which allows media to make allegations with little proof and leads whole populations to believe the myth that all priests are abusers.  

 

Time, I think, for all of us to watch or read Arthur Miller's The Crucible: it has a lot of wisdom to offer us in this crisis.  Justice, truth, charity and prudence.

Abortion In Ireland....Step One: Set Up A Committee

Remember I said that abortion is on its way into Ireland? Well, the Minister for Health is setting up an expert committee to study the recent ruling by the European Court of Human Rights (see article here). Is this the first step?

Time for the Church to get going on this.  It is also time for the Church to start challenging the slant journalists are putting on the abuse crisis.  The six reports issued by the NBSCCC were, on the whole, positive, but Patsy McGarry of The Irish Times and his cohorts in the media were slithering all over the place in their attempts to inflict maximum damage on the Church, and on Bishop Philip Boyce of Raphoe in particular.  As Christopher McCamley points out, they presume that all accusations are true and if a priest is not found guilty in court of abuse, then he got away with it. 

Well, so much for Patsy McGarry's fervent insistence last week that there isn't an anti-Catholic bias in the media - yesterday's travesty in the media puts the lie to that.  Only a fool would believe the media in Ireland is fair to the Catholic Church, and it is time faithful Catholics stopped acting like fools. Time to learn something from Fr Kevin Reynolds.

Catching Up

Back to the Hedge School: the future of Catholic schools in Ireland?

Getting time to blog has been difficult in the last week - various pastoral duties; yesterday was pretty busy.  So time, I think, for a little news round up so Father Director can get on his pony and rant for a bit - we all need a bit of a rant every now and again.  Famous last words which will be regretted, no doubt, as I sit in the rogue's gallery waiting for my turn in confession.   So "Charitas" as St Francis de Paolo would say.

My colleague over at the St Genesius blog has an interesting post on the ongoing discussions over the future of Catholic education in Ireland.  Our American and British readers will know all about this since they have been dealing with the assault on Catholic education for decades.  It seems that the draft proposals for Catholic schools (ie those the government decides to leave with us) are suggesting that religious education, and indeed ethos, be strictly kept to certain times and not permitted to "infiltrate" (my word) the rest of the curriculum.

Well, the Catholic Church's response to this should be brief and unambiguous: "Not on your Nellie!"  Here's where the new appointments to Irish Sees becomes important.  The new Irish bishops will need to be strong and indeed defiant in the face of such suggestions.  If these proposals are to implemented by the government, then the Church should refuse to accept them and refuse to implement them in our schools. 

Lest the fearful among us object - the Constitution of this country is on our side on this one, and we should use it.  I often ask myself, why is the Church in Ireland terrified to use the Constitutional protections we have and actually feel the need to negotiate a compromise when there is no need to do so?  There seems to be a fear of standing up to the government. 

We do not have to hand over schools.  Regardless of what Irish ecclesiastical figure says we should, there is no onus on us at all.  It is up to parents to decide if they want a Catholic education for their children.  If the majority do, then there is a need for lots of Catholic schools.  If secularists want non-denominational schools, they are entitled to them under the Constitution - so they go and set them up and the government must support them.  But why are they whining on about Catholic schools?  Is it the case that they do not want to go to the bother of setting up their own, they want to take the easy way out and take over ours?  Or is it a case they want to get rid of Catholic education altogether? 

Ironically, as has happened in other countries, when all this has been settled, and there are secular schools galore, there will be a clamour to get children into the remaining Catholic schools, and no doubt you'll find plenty of secularists among them. 

As for the suggestion that the display of religious artifacts "be inclusive of all belief systems".  With all due respect, if you pop into a Jewish or Muslim school you will not find a crucifix (which is offensive to Muslims by the way - they do not believe Jesus was crucified), nor a statue of Our Lady of Lourdes.  Nor, in a Catholic school, should we find statues of Hindu gods, Buddha or a mihrab. Nor should we celebrate the festivals of other faiths since many of these are offensive to our Christian faith.  How can we, as followers of Christ and as monotheists have our children, whom we are trying to catechize, celebrate Rama Navami, the feast of the birth of the god Rama?  Yes, we must teach our children respect for other religions, and something about them, but as for putting them on the same level as Christianity by celebrating the feasts and erecting shrines to other gods, that's not on.  Again, the response to this must also be decisive "No".

In other news, RTE is reeling (no pun intended) from the government's decision to hold an enquiry into the defamation of Fr Kevin Reynolds.  As we all know this case was horrific, and to be honest I am delighted things have turned out as they have: we need to expose the shoddy journalism which has become commonplace in a number of media organisations.  Here is one priest who did not sit down and take the accusations, and while I have little time for the ACP's ideological agenda, I think they have done the Church in Ireland a service by pushing Fr Reynold's case.  I know of too many cases where innocent priests and religious were not permitted to challenge accusations.  It was easier to pay the compensation and apologise, and so some superiors took that road rather than risk offending people in the current climate.   

The question is: how will this inquiry turn out?  Will RTE learn?  And will other stories which were not entirely true be investigated also?  Is this a single enquiry into one case, or will the government bite the bullet and conduct a thorough investigation?

The full implementation of the corrected translation of the Missal is upon us. On Saturday evening, with the Vigil Masses, all texts for the Mass must come from the new Missal - the old Missals are no longer to be used.  As you trot across the net you'll find many articles and blog posts on this, and many are not happy. One writer says the implementation of the new Missal is an act of Vatican Vandalism (some say the implementation of the vernacular Missal was another such act - I shall not comment).  What I find most amusing, is that the liberals who are protesting are in the same position as the traditionalists back in the Seventies - they do not want the change, they will resist it; they will cling to the old Missal for dear life.  I wonder if that irony has dawned on them.

My own experience has been positive.  In my parish my people have responded most generously to the new translation.  My daily Mass goers have the new responses off by heart.  Some have wondered why the change, and they have listened to the explanations.  For a number of weeks I devoted the Sunday homilies to the new translation and to a catechesis on the Mass in general and it was well received.  I think when people are introduced to the new translation with openness and enthusiasm, they respond.  A friend of mine, a layman, said that in parishes where the priests are positive and explain the changes and reasons for them, the people will be positive and welcome the translation; in parishes where priests are negative and rebellious, the people will be negative.  There is some truth in that. In the meantime I must pop out to the cemetery and find a nice spot to bury the old Missals - I don't like the idea of burning them.

And to end, today is the feast of the Martyrs of Vietnam: to all our brothers and sisters in that country, we wish you a happy feast day.  May the example of your holy martyrs, who offer the whole Church an outstanding witness to the Catholic faith, sustain you and all of us as we seek to live the Gospel with greater fidelity.

Among these martyrs is St Theophane Venard, a young French priest beheaded in Tomkin in 1861.  St Therese of the Child Jesus was a devotee of his: she had his photograph pinned to the curtain hanging over her bed as she was preparing for death.  She prayed to him often and sought his help in her suffering: I believe he obtained many graces for her.  There is something about Theophane which is very Theresian - a practitioner of the Little Way, I think.  May he watch over all of us in these times.  And to end, a photograph of Theophane, to print out and pin up over your bed just in case the angel of death decides to pop in for a chat.

St Theophane Venard, priest and martyr

(1829-1861)

Iona Institute Survey On Child Abuse

The Iona Institute has released the results of a recent survey in which they have discovered that Irish people have overestimated the extent of the child abuse problem with regard to priests. 

The much ignored SAVI Report (an independent report into child abuse conducted by the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre) tells us that about 3% of those who have been abused have been abused by priests/clerics/religious.  It contrasts with the perceptions of many Irish people, and indeed with the amount of coverage the media have given to child abuse in the Church - the bigger problem in society tends to be ignored. 

Here is a copy of the press release from the Iona Institute, thanks to them for sending it to me.

Majority of public overestimates number of priests who are guilty of child abuse

Seven in ten overestimate prevalence of abusers among the Catholic clergy

One in four believe that 40pc or more of all priests have abused a child

November 1, 2011- A CLEAR majority of the public overestimate the number of Catholic clergy who are guilty of child abuse, a new Amarach Research poll commissioned by The Iona Institute reveals.

The most authoritative estimate to date, conducted in the United States, puts the true number of accused priests at 4 percent. (See note three below).

However, seven out of every ten respondents believe the number is higher than this and 42 per cent put the number above 20 percent. Of these, 27 percent believe the number exceeds 40 percent, and 17 percent put it at half or more.

Five percent of the public believe that between 90 percent and 100 percent of all Catholic priests are guilty of child abuse. (For a fuller breakdown of the figures see note four below).

Therefore, close to half of the public are overestimating the number of guilty priests by a factor of at least five to one.

The findings of The Iona Institute poll are similar to those of a poll commissioned on this subject by the Royal College of Surgeons in 2002, although a higher percentage of the public are now grossly overestimating the number of priests who are guilty of child abuse.

The Royal College poll found that 11pc of the public believed that more than half of priests are guilty of child abuse. This latest poll, as mentioned, found that 17 percent of the public today put it at more than half.

Commenting on the findings on behalf of The Iona Institute, Professor Patricia Casey said: “There has been very deep and completely justified public anger over the scandal of child sex abuse by clergy. However, only a small minority of priests are guilty of this terrible crime and in the interests of justice, and in fairness to the vast majority of priests, it is essential that fact this becomes universally known among the public at large”.

Professor Casey continued: “It might be understandable if the public were overestimating the number of guilty priests by a factor of two or so, but the fact that so many members of the public are grossly overestimating the number of guilty priests should be a matter of deep concern to all fair-minded people.

“It could be claimed that the fact for this overestimation lies exclusively with the Church. However, as a normal rule when responsible media outlets are reporting crimes by certain groups such as Travellers or Muslims, great care is taken not to stereotype or demonise these groups.

“For example, when terrorist atrocities are committed in the name of Islam, responsible media point out that only a tiny minority of Muslims are guilty of these atrocities, and that such terrorist attacks are an aberration in Muslim terms, rather than a true expression of Islam”.

She concluded: “Therefore, when cases of clerical abuse are being reported, a similarly responsible attitude should be adopted, that is, the cases should be factually and objectively covered, but it should be made clear each and every time that only a very small minority of Catholic priests are guilty of child abuse”.

          ENDS
        Notes to Editor

1.      The Iona Institute is a pro-religion organisation.
2.      These findings are based on a nationwide survey of 1,000 Irish people in September using the Amárach Research omnibus service.
3.      According to the most authoritative study on the topic, conducted by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in the United States, four percent of priests in the US had one or more allegations of child abuse made against them in the period 1950 to 2002. The abuse scandals peaked between 1975 and 1985. The study is called ‘The Nature and Scope of the Problem of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests and Deacons in the United States’. No comparable study has been done of any other organisation anywhere in the world. The variation between US dioceses averaged at between 3-6%.
4.      Thirty one percent of respondents put the number of abusers at 5% or less. Another 14% put it at 6 to 10%; 13% put it at 11 to 20%; 10% at 21 to 30%; 5% at 31 to 40%; 10% at 41 to 50%; 4% at 51 to 60%; 3% at 61 to 70%; 4% at 71 to 80%; 1% at 81 to 90% and 5% at 91 to 100%.

Coverage of the findings in today's newspapers: The Irish Examiner, The Irish Independent, The Irish Times, Yahoo! news also has an article, note they put 'overestimated' in inverted commas - they should read the SAVI Report.   The Belfast Telegraph does the same in its article.  So should the last 5% who think that 91-100% of priests are child abusers.   

The Iona Institute does great work and is worthy of support.  They get a lot of flack because they make public the news a lot of people do not want to hear.  They tend to be unpopular with both the media and members of the hierarchy, but they do a great service to society and the Church.  So, if you have a few euro/pounds/dollars to spare, you could do worse than send them a donation to help them in their work.  Link to their website here.

In Memory Of The Lost

You may have seen this article on Zenit, if not, read it - it is very important.  For years IVF has been hailed as a great move forward in treating infertility - thousands of children have been born to childless couples, bringing them great joy and easing the burden and stigma of childlessness. 

The Church, however, has its difficulties with the procedure, and rightly so - it fulfills the prophecy Pope Paul VI uttered in Humane Vitae.  This article shows why the Church has her issues with the procedure.

Some interesting facts:  since 1991 100,000 children have been born of the procedure, out of 3 million children conceived.  Of these children 1.5 million have be discarded during treatment - think about that - 1.5 million children have been thrown out, destroyed by doctors and scientists.  The abuse crisis pales in comparison with that!   And many, many more remain frozen in IVF centres, most of them destined to be destroyed also.  These are human beings we are talking about.

Other interesting facts: one man has fathered 150 children so far through the process.  There are cases of other men fathering 50 or more children.   This means incest is going become an issue in the years ahead, and when siblings marry there are genetic consequences.    As regards those born of so called "sperm donors", while there is no definite figures, there are estimates that there could be as many as 60,000. 

And all of this costs money - people are getting rich through these processes, and that, my friends, seems to make children a commodity - a "product" which is desired and then "made.  As we see now, if the "product" does not fit the bill, then it can be discarded (aka abortion) and another made. 

I have no desire to offend anyone, and certainly not those burdened with infertility, but life is precious, it is a gift, it cannot be made and discarded, subject to the will and whim of another human being.  IVF might seem to solve problems, but it creates even more, and while it may seek to bring the joy of a new life into the lives of loving couples, it does so by killing hundreds of thousands of other lives. 

Here is a very disturbing fact - when you see a child born of IVF, 30 other children were "created" in the procedure that brought this one to birth: where are they?  Dead?  Discarded?  Experimented on?  Frozen?  Do not forget that they too are children. 

If we are supposed to be putting children first, and as the great mantra "Best Practice" is repeated over and over again like a Eastern chant, is it not time to really put children first -  not just install and sign register books in sacristies and hoard forms filled by everything that moves within a mile of a church property??   For years the Church has been silent about IVF for fear of offending those who avail of it - God forbid we catechise!    Time to stop being selective - time to think of children - all children, particularly those who fall victim to the culture of death.

RTE Apologises

RTE has issued a grovelling apology to Fr Kevin Reynolds just before this evening's Primetime programme.  The text of the apology can be found here.  I presume there will be a substantial settlement to accompany it.  The media coverage of this priest's unjust treatment has been paltry to say the least.  The media are very quick to get the accusations out, and they devote hours of television and radio time to following up on them, demonising the accused and dragging in every critic they can find.  But when the priest has been cleared, it rarely merits any better coverage than a short paragraph hidden away in the bowels of a newspaper. 

Reading some threads on this in the last few moments, one commenter said that despite this RTE would do the same again to someone else.  I am afraid I have to agree.  The media in Ireland today will not learn the lesson because most of the Catholics they liable tend not to sue - Fr Reynolds did. 

Perhaps if the Church decided to start taking legal action against journalists, then their attitude might change. Of course the Church would then be accused of hypocrisy for not turning the other cheek - our critics tend to like to get off by holding the Church to her teaching.  But you see, Jesus said forgive, turn the other cheek, but we also understand that making reparation for sin is a necessary part of forgiveness and reconciliation.   Interesting thoughts. 

Today In The News...

Just when you think things can't get any worse, a new front is opening on the assault on the Church, this time courtesy of the retired Bishop of Derry, Dr Edward Daly.  In his new book he advocates for a change to the rule of celibacy in the Church.  We'll see where that goes.  Given what we are dealing with at the moment, this is most unhelpful.

I was watching last night's Frontline programme on RTE 1, hosted by Pat Kenny.  The topic was the Seal of the Confessional, and it was a most desperate production.  It should really be called "Flatline" because the atmosphere was deadening.  The usual suspects were there advocating that the Church should disregard the Seal: Minister Frances Fitzgerald was leading the attack, with Gina Menzies, Andrew Madden and a guy called Brendan with rearguard action.  On the other side were notables such as Fr Vincent Twomey, David Quinn and Rosemary Swords, leader of the Elijah Fellowship Community in Dublin, whose intervention was powerful and disarming.   Some legal voices were also heard and they pointed out that any legislation which sought to compel priests to reveal confessions would be unconstitutional and thrown out of court.  So at least it was good for the Minister to hear that fact.

Meanwhile another blow has been dished out to Enda Kenny by former Taoiseach Brian Cowen.  He has said that the Vatican was trying to assist the government in its investigations, but the commission established by the government used the wrong channels.  When told what channels to use the commission decided not to use them, and then accused the Vatican of refusing to cooperate.  It seems to me that there may have been another agenda at work here, and perhaps, it seems to me, an opportunity was "created" to show the Vatican in a negative light so as to embellish the report's critique of Catholicism.

In other news, it seems David Norris is thinking of getting himself back into the race for the park - to become the next President of Ireland.  It seems the people of Ireland want him to resume his campaign.  Ironic given recent events: another indication that there is a most unsavoury double standard at work in Ireland today.

They Just Don't Get It

How will the Taoiseach and government respond to the Vatican's report?   Well if the newspapers are any indication, there will be no attempt to pull back on the unfounded allegations thrown at the Vatican.  The Irish Times has an article exploring this.  It seems the media, finally getting over the shock has found its mantra: "the Vatican just don't get this".  The Times's editorial is trying to give the impression of being balanced in its reflection, but fails - as expected.

I think this will be the government's response at the end of the day.  They are shocked, I think, at the Holy See's refusal to take the attack lying down.  Irish politicians and the media have got used to bashing the Church and getting away with it.  Whenever they attack the Church in Ireland, for the most part, Irish Church representatives have been silent and even fearful.  When politicians and media mention child abuse, which they tend to do most of the time when dealing with Church issues, the Church here tends to draw back.  Kenny expected this to happen, but the Holy See was not going to play that game: the truth is on their side and they were going to get the truth out.  As it is becoming very obvious ,as opinions leak out from members of the government, if I may quote Jack Nicholson, they can't handle the truth.  So all we will probably get is the usual liberal mantra, wheeled out when there is no defence: "The Vatican just doesn't get this!"

How ironic, if ever there was a mantra to describe the media and political elite in this country it has to be that very phrase.   What do they not get?  Well first of all they don't get the fact that child abuse in an Irish problem and the incidences of child abuse outside the Church is far greater, as Caroline over at the St Genesius blog points out. 

Why do they not get this?  Because they know that to look at abuse in Irish society will open a can of worms and expose many people, including, no doubt they fear, many of their nearest and dearest.  There is already a cover up of child abuse and protection of abusers in Irish society: we know all too well of the media's attempts to protect certain personalities.  Ironic really, for all the talk of mandatory reporting, I wonder how many of the movers and shakers in Ireland's elite really want it?  It might just put them in a difficult position.

They also do not get that the Vatican is not to blame for child abuse in Ireland. They do not get that Enda Kenny's defamatory speech was wrong, stupid and ill-judged.  They do not get that they are isolating Ireland diplomatically not only from the Holy See, but from other countries that can see the reality of the situation. 

Personally I do not believe the government will take this report on the chin - they will not apologise, as they should.  Enda Kenny will not withdraw his remarks - he sees himself as the great hero of Ireland because he has managed to convince some people in Ireland that what he has said is the truth.  He has dug a hole for himself and he will keep digging, and his party colleagues and coalition partners will be there to lend a hand.  I am sure that many in Fine Gael, and perhaps even Labour, realise that they have gone too far, but by gum they cannot back down: can't let the Catholic Church win this one! 

Archbishop Martin has now challenged the Taoiseach to give full details of the incidents of the Vatican, we must come right in behind him and demand an explanation.  We must not allow Kenny to wriggle out of this. Speaking with many people yesterday at the day's retreat, there are many out there who are deeply ashamed of the Taoiseach. 

UPDATE: On the Pat Kenny radio show Labour's Pat Rabbitte has called the Vatican's response as "pettifogging detail". 

Patsy McGarry of The Irish Times on Pat Kenny show is rehashing old news - well done Patsy, ignore the report, just keep banging on with the old, worn out arguments which have already been answered time and time again.  He's defending Irish bishops and saying Rome stopped them from dealing with the issue effectively.  They just do not get it.  As far as I can see, it seems the Irish media are creating a fog to distract from the Vatican's devastating response.  Surprise, surprise - journalistic standards my eye! 

Oh no! Gina Menzies is on now!  She is defending the government's plan to force priests to break the seal.  She says the Seal is not inviolable because it only came into force in 1215. And this lady calls herself a theologian! 

Vatican Response To "Cloyne Report"

The Vatican has released its report in response to the Cloyne Report and the accusations of Enda Kenny in the Dail.  Caroline over at the St Genesius blog has the text in full.  Or read it here on the Vatican website.  There is a good summary from the Vatican new service.  The Irish media are revving up to launch its attack.  We await a response from the Taoiseach, who will not be pleased. We also await a response from our bishops.

In summary, a quick digest of the summary:

On the Cloyne Report:

"The Holy See wishes to state at the outset its profound abhorrence for the crimes of sexual abuse which took place in that Diocese and is sorry and ashamed for the terrible sufferings which the victims of abuse and their families have had to endure within the Church of Jesus Christ, a place where this should never happen. It is very concerned at the findings of the Commission concerning grave failures in the ecclesiastical governance of the Diocese and the mishandling of allegations of abuse. It is particularly disturbing that these failures occurred despite the undertaking given by the Bishops and Religious Superiors to apply the guidelines developed by the Church in Ireland to help ensure child protection and despite the Holy See’s norms and procedures relating to cases of sexual abuse. However, the approach taken by the Church in Ireland in recent times to the problem of child sexual abuse is benefitting from ongoing experience and proving more and more effective in preventing the recurrence of these crimes and in dealing with cases as they arise."

On the infamous letter sent to the bishops:

"The Holy See’s Response addresses in detail the various charges made against it, which seem to be based primarily on the Cloyne Report’s account and assessment of the letter addressed to the Irish Bishops on 31 January 1997 by the then Apostolic Nuncio, Archbishop Luciano Storero, concerning the response of the Congregation for the Clergy to the document Child Sexual Abuse: Framework for a Church Response (the Framework Document). The Commission of Inquiry asserts that this response gave comfort to those who dissented from the stated official Church policy and was unsupportive especially in relation to reporting to the civil authorities.

The Holy See wishes to state the following in relation to the response of the Congregation for the Clergy:

The Congregation described the Framework Document as a “study document” on the basis of information provided by the Irish Bishops, who described the text not as an official document of the Irish Bishops’ Conference, but, rather, as a “report” of the Irish Catholic Bishops’ Advisory Committee on Child Sexual Abuse by Priests and Religious, recommended “to individual dioceses and congregations as a framework for addressing the issue of child sexual abuse.”

The Irish Bishops never sought the recognitio of the Holy See for the Framework Document, which, in accordance with canon 455 of the Code of Canon Law, would have been required only if they intended it to be a general decree of the Conference binding on all its members. However, the lack of recognitio itself did not preclude the application of the document’s guidelines, since individual Bishops could adopt them without having to refer to the Holy See. This is, in fact, what generally happened in Ireland.

The Irish Bishops consulted the Congregation to resolve difficulties relating to some of the content of the Framework Document. The Congregation offered advice to the Bishops with a view to ensuring that the measures which they intended to apply would prove effective and unproblematic from a canonical perspective. For this reason, the Congregation drew attention to the requirement that these measures should be in harmony with canonical procedures in order to avoid conflicts that could give rise to successful appeals in Church tribunals. The Congregation did not reject the Framework Document. Rather, it wanted to ensure that the measures contained in the Framework Document would not undermine the Bishops’ efforts to discipline those guilty of child abuse in the Church. At the same time, it is important to bear in mind the decision of the Holy See in 1994 to grant special provisions to the Bishops of the United States to deal with child sexual abuse in the Church. These provisions were extended to the Bishops of Ireland in 1996 to assist them to overcome difficulties that they were experiencing at that time (cf. Part Six of the Response).

Meeting canonical requirements to ensure the correct administration of justice within the Church in no way precluded cooperation with the civil authorities. The Congregation for the Clergy did express reservations about mandatory reporting, but it did not forbid the Irish Bishops from reporting accusations of child sexual abuse nor did it encourage them to flout Irish law. In this regard, the then Prefect of the Congregation, Cardinal Darío Castrillón Hoyos, in his meeting with the Irish Bishops at Rosses Point, County Sligo (Ireland), on 12 November 1998 unequivocally stated: “I also wish to say with great clarity that the Church, especially through its Pastors (Bishops), should not in any way put an obstacle in the legitimate path of civil justice, when such is initiated by those who have such rights, while at the same time, she should move forward with her own canonical procedures, in truth, justice and charity towards all.” It should be noted that, at the time, not only the Church but also the Irish State was engaged in efforts to improve its own legislation on child sexual abuse. To this end, the Irish Government organized an extensive consultation on mandatory reporting in 1996 and, after taking into account the reservations expressed by various professional groups and individuals in civil society – views broadly in line with those expressed by the Congregation – it decided not to introduce mandatory reporting into the Irish legal system. Given that the Irish Government of the day decided not to legislate on the matter, it is difficult to see how Archbishop Storero’s letter to the Irish Bishops, which was issued subsequently, could possibly be construed as having somehow subverted Irish law or undermined the Irish State in its efforts to deal with the problem in question."

On Enda Kenny's accusations:

"While the Holy See understands and shares the depth of public anger and frustration at the findings of the Cloyne Report, which found expression in the speech made by the Taoiseach, Mr Enda Kenny, in Dáil Éireann on 20 July 2011, it has significant reservations about some aspects of the speech. In particular, the accusation that the Holy See attempted “to frustrate an Inquiry in a sovereign, democratic republic as little as three years ago, not three decades ago” is unfounded. Indeed, when asked, a Government spokesperson clarified that Mr Kenny was not referring to any specific incident.

In fact, accusations of interference by the Holy See are belied by the many Reports cited as the basis for such criticisms. Those Reports – lauded for their exhaustive investigation of sexual abuse and the way it was managed – contain no evidence that the Holy See meddled in the internal affairs of the Irish State or was involved in the day-to-day management of Irish dioceses or religious congregations with respect to sexual abuse issues. Indeed, what is impressive about these Reports, and the vast information that they rely upon, is that there is no support for these accusations.

In this regard, the Holy See wishes to make it quite clear that it in no way hampered or sought to interfere in any inquiry into cases of child sexual abuse in the Diocese of Cloyne. Furthermore, at no stage did the Holy See seek to interfere with Irish civil law or impede the civil authority in the exercise of its duties."

Concluding remarks:

"The publication of the Cloyne Report marks a further stage in the long and difficult path of ascertaining the truth, of penance and purification, and of healing and renewal of the Church in Ireland. The Holy See does not consider itself extraneous to this process but shares in it in a spirit of solidarity and commitment.

In a spirit of humility, the Holy See, while rejecting unfounded accusations, welcomes all objective and helpful observations and suggestions to combat with determination the appalling crime of sexual abuse of minors. The Holy See wishes to state once again that it shares the deep concern and anxiety expressed by the Irish authorities, by Irish citizens in general and by the Bishops, priests, religious and lay faithful of Ireland with regard to the criminal and sinful acts of sexual abuse perpetrated by clergy and religious. It also recognizes the understandable anger, disappointment and sense of betrayal of those affected – particularly the victims and their families – by these vile and deplorable acts and by the way in which they were sometimes handled by Church authorities, and for all of this it wishes to reiterate its sorrow for what happened. It is confident that the measures which the Church has introduced in recent years at a universal level, as well as in Ireland, will prove more effective in preventing the recurrence of these acts and contribute to the healing of those who suffered abuse and to the restoration of mutual confidence and collaboration between Church and State authorities, which is essential for the effective combating of the scourge of abuse. Naturally, the Holy See is well aware that the painful situation to which the episodes of abuse have given rise cannot be resolved swiftly or easily, and that although much progress has been made, much remains to be done.

Since the early days of the Irish State and especially since the establishment of diplomatic relations in 1929, the Holy See has always respected Ireland’s sovereignty, has maintained cordial and friendly relations with the country and its authorities, has frequently expressed its admiration for the exceptional contribution of Irish men and women to the Church’s mission and to the betterment of peoples throughout the world, and has been unfailing in its support of all efforts to promote peace on the island during the recent troubled decades. Consistent with this attitude, the Holy See wishes to reaffirm its commitment to constructive dialogue and cooperation with the Irish Government, naturally on the basis of mutual respect, so that all institutions, whether public or private, religious or secular, may work together to ensure that the Church and, indeed, society in general will always be safe for children and young people."

This is what many of us expected.  I imagine the government will be furious that the Vatican should reject the accusations made by the Taoiseach and also the interpretation Judge Yvonne Murphy, the government and the media have put on the letter.  As I said before this letter was a warning to the bishops to follow the correct course of action with regard to Canon Law so abusers could not appeal to Rome and get off on a technicality.  It is also rich of the government to take offence at the Vatican's hesitation to support mandatory reporting when the government at the time shied away from it because of lack of support, while various organisations and professions, chief among them the legal and counselling professions and social workers, share the Vatican's concerns with regard to mandatory reporting, ironically for many of the same reasons. 

UPDATE:  While the Taoiseach is off studying the Vatican's reponse, we may have indication of how the government will respond thanks to the initial reactions of Tanaiste, Eamon Gilmore, leader of the Labour Party.  He seems to dimiss the report by calling it "legalistic and technical".  I presume as keeping the coalition together will be foremost in his mind, perhaps the Taoiseach will take the same line.  He has already made it clear that he neither rejects nor withdraws his accusations made against the person of the Holy Father and the Vatican.

UPDATE 2:  Eamon Gilmore on RTE news has toned down his reaction.  Seems someone must have had a chat with him.  The Taoiseach looked shell shocked on the news - he won't comment.  Interestingly, he was attending a Mass at the Curragh Army Camp when the report came out.  Ironic.

UPDATE 3:  Good article and summary by Gerard O'Connell on Vatican Insider; worth reading.  Archbishop Martin's response here; he hopes the Vatican's report will help heal the diplomatic rift.  I hear from my sources and people in diplomatic circles that there is a view among many that Ireland has done herself a lot of damage diplomatically thanks to Enda Kenny's attack.  I am told that other countries seem be "very surprised", at the very least, at the lack of professionalism and diplomatic ability demonstrated in the Taoiseach's Dail outburst.  The Vatican's clear explanation of its position in this response will be carefully noted by other countries, as will the government's response. 

Battle Lines Being Drawn

Cardinal Sean Brady made a spirited defence of the Seal of the Confessional in Knock on Sunday, correctly pointing out that any legislation requiring priests to break the Seal will challenge religious freedom in this country.  The government, however, is determined to go ahead, and Alan Shatter, the Minister of Justice, has responded to the Cardinal's defence by insisting that priests will not be exempt.

Indeed such legislation would contravene our Constitutional rights with regard to the practice of our Catholic faith, that is why I think this legislation may be a non-runner, unless of course the present government seeks to change the Constitution and limit religious freedom in certain circumstances.  Now having spoken to some friends on this they all said that if such a referendum is presented to the people they would reject it.  They might, I say, if they know about it.  But then there are other ways of getting the consent of the people.

There is due to be a referendum on children's rights in the next few months - seeking a change in the Constitution which may introduce particularly worrying developments. This proposed amendment to the Constitution may dissolve certain parental rights, transferring them to the state, in order to protect children and give them more rights as citizens.  What is stopping the government from including a clause, a nice ambiguous clause, into the wording of the amendment which will state that certain religious rights may be suspended or overlooked in certain cases in order to protect the life, health or welfare of the child?  Nothing. Groups will argue about the amendment, its supporters roll out the hard cases and try to win the assent of the people.  Is this what the goverment intends to do? 

Can They Handle The Truth?

There is a bit of a storm brewing at the moment in Ireland with regard to the forthcoming report on Child abuse in the diocese of Raphoe.  The Church's own investigative organisation and the HSE are due to release their findings into the way the diocese dealt with accusations. 

A report in the Irish Independent claims that the reports will reveal that hundreds of children were abused by priests.  The bishop of Raphoe, Dr Philip Boyce has refuted the newspaper's claims as exaggerated, and, as expected, he is being condemned from the heights by the usual suspects who have now suddenly rediscovered their voices after their temporary bout of chronic laryngitis around the time of the revelations about Senator David Norris.  Reading some reactions to his intervention I see one person dismisses the bishop and tells us that the Church is constantly trying to hide the truth.  Interesting.....

I do not know what is in the reports, we will have to wait and see.  If Bishop Boyce is incorrect and hundreds were abused he has certainly made himself a hostage to fortune, but then he could also be correct. We cannot, however, presume he is lying.  The question of truth, however, is very topical.  But I would like to ask of our liberal secularists and anti-Church critics what they mean by truth?  As Pilate said to the Lord: "Truth? What is that?" 

I ask this because it is almost certain that their definition of truth is not that which is found in the Oxford English Dictionary which is the definition the Church tends to go along with.  You see if it was then the secular media would not be making a distinction between child abuse by priests and child abuse by others.  If it was then the celebrity would get the same grilling as the priest and those who protect abusers regardless of who they are or their sexual orientation would all be treated the same.  But that is not the way it seems.  If you are a celebrity, a liberal or gay there is another set of rules for you, there are lots and lots of excuses which will be offered for your behaviour, or if they can't come up with any, then they just won't cover the story and try to kill it. 

In response to this I have other questions: what about the victims?   Is the victim of a non-clerical abuser somehow less important?  Is their pain and suffering not enough to spark a rage?  I try to imagine (though to be honest I cannot because it has not happened to me and I dare not presume to undermine their suffering by pretending to understand) how these victims feel when the media excuse or cover up their abusers or even defend them?  Or when they interview these abusers with the deepest respect and understanding and treat them as if they were the victims of right-wing conservatives?  How do these victims feel when their abusers court national sympathy as "victims of homophobia" and those who protect them are considered fit to hold the highest office in the land? 

It seems to me that, for all their pontificating about the Catholic Church and truth, the liberal secularists and Irish media need to listen to their own diatribe and implement it themselves.  In this sordid affair of child abuse, truth is the last thing they are interested in.

In relation to this, this is a deeply disturbing story emerging from Hollywood with regard to paedophilia.  Corey Feldman, a former child star, has spoken about the prevalence of paedophilia in the film industry and seems to suggest that the tragic suicide of fellow actor Corey Haim was related to his being abused by people in the industry. 

Criminal Hypocrisy Of Liberal Ireland

Coming back from my First Friday calls I was listening to Newstalk radio's lunchtime show.  One of the items concerned a poll on the upcoming Presidential election, one taken in the light of recent events surrounding Senator David Norris.  It seems, according to the poll, that while two thirds of those polled (from a sample of 800) agreed he did the right thing in stepping down, a majority would still have considered voting for him if he had decided to continue his campaign.  I almost drove the car into a ditch I was so furious.

Away on holiday I was getting regular updates regarding the Cloyne Report, I have blogged some reactions to that.  Then suddenly the updates changed to the David Norris affair where it was revealed that he had used his office as a Senator of the Republic to plead for clemency for his gay lover who was convicted of statutory rape.  More then came out  - how Norris, by his own admission, failed to be completely upfront with  Irish Immigration authorities who were investigating his lover's presence in the country.  He misled them in a manner which, if it concerned other people, he himself would call Jesuitical.  All this after another incident in which an interview he gave ten years ago was re-released into the public forum in which he expresses views on paedophilia which are, at the very least, deeply worrying.

Yet, unlike the bishops and priests who committed similar actions and covered up, rather than becoming the next pariah of the country, the media, the liberal luvvies and politicians are rushing to his defence.  The media are desperately trying to be balanced, and even trying to ignore the stories.  The gay lobby are howling "Homophobes" at all who are shocked at the senator's behaviour and some of them are vowing to get revenge on the young man who exposed the senator's letter pleading for clemency, which is not only appalling in its trivialising the crime of child abuse but is also an unbelievable piece of self aggrandisement on Norris's part.  Apparently, according to some journalists there are other skeletons in Norris's closet, one wonders if they will see the light of day?

I also notice that over at Wikipedia there is a debate going on on the discussion page of the article on Norris's former lover.  He is Ezra Nawi, a prominent pro-Palestinian activist. It seems some contributors have been trying to update the article on Nawi to include his conviction for statutory rape, but the editors/administrators won't allow it - they say there is no evidence.  If you go to the site you'll see that there is an effort to protect this man too by not including his misdemeanours.   Nawi himself believes Norris has been the victim of a dirty tricks campaign.

Well, rather than rant and give in to the devil's temptation to err against charity, I refer you to two excellent pieces in the newspapers today by two journalists who rise above the hypocrisy of the media in Ireland today: a criminal hypocrisy if you ask me.   John Waters has been on the radio the last few days and has spoken about this, his column in the Irish Times today sums up his excellent arguments.  David Quinn is the foremost defender of the Church, and sometimes its critic: when bishops fall silent and fail to teach and speak up, David does so.  His column in the Irish Independent sums up his position on the Norris case, as always excellently argued.

Of course all of this has happened before.  As liberal Ireland, politicians, media etc howl for Catholic blood, they also ignored the questionable actions of a gay poet on his jaunts overseas.  A young filmmaker exposed his particular little habits and it was she, not him, who was condemned in the press: another "homophobe" for the gay hysterics.

The fact that many in Ireland would still vote for Senator Norris sends a very clear message to those who work to prevent and expose child abuse in Ireland today and it is not a good message.  While liberal Ireland, and perhaps many in mainstream Ireland, attack the Church for its abysmal record in this regard - now, hopefully, a thing of the past, they are quite prepared to revise their values and expel their indignation when it comes to others. 

Child abuse is a serious problem in Ireland: we have not even scratched the surface - the abusers in the Church have been found as have their protectors - and thank God for that.  But the vast majority of abusers in Irish society, and their many protectors, have not been found yet and, I fear, if the Norris affair is anything to go by, they will never be found.  Why?  Because we all know them; they are everywhere, even in the upper echelons of Irish society.  Some are even paragons of secular virtue and liberal "holiness".  And by God, Ireland and her media will do everything to keep them safe: only the Church will be thrown to the wild animals (not the first time for that): scapegoat.

By the way, the very vocal, indignant Taoiseach has been very quiet on the whole Norris issue.  I wonder why?

UPDATE:   According to another article in the Irish Independent today, it seems Senator Norris has now been exposed as trying to rally support for his former lover from parliamentary colleagues without informing them of the man's criminal record.  See article here.