Sunday, September 12, 2010

Once Again - Peter Tatchell, Pope Benedict and Paedophilia


















Peter Tatchell has another post on the "Harrys Place" blog regarding the Pope's visit to Britain
"Why Should I Pay for the Pope"
http://hurryupharry.org/2010/09/09/why-should-i-pay-for-the-pope/
These are two of many actions by Pope Benedict that call into question his moral authority. He says women are unfit to be priests, childless couples should be denied fertility treatment, embryonic stem cell research is murder, using condoms to stop the spread of HIV is immoral and gay people are not entitled to equal human rights. Most shockingly, the Pope is accused of colluding with the cover up of child sex abuse by priests. Even today, he has not handed the Vatican’s sex abuse files to the police.

A few commentators (including myself) have pointed out that Peter Tatchell is a strange one to be denouncing the Pope's actions in relation to the paedophilia scandal:

Caged Horse 9 September 2010, 3:53 pm
How many times has PT called for a substantial reduction in the age of consent? Some might say him and Pope Benny are made for each other.

John P. 9 September 2010, 7:41 pm
I do agree with Christopher Hitchens that His Holiness should be served with a subpeonea for his role in the Church’s coverup

What coverup? Had there been such a coverup, then the pedophile problem would have never made the news, would it?

Benedict has only ( indirectly, by the way) been involved with a known pedophile cleric. That cleric was removed from his functions and subjected to a good deal of intense therapy. When that therapy ended, Benedict, thinking the guy was better, signed a letter reinstating him.

Afterwards that cleric recidivated.

How does that constitute a coverup?

I think The Church should approach the friggin’ therapist and ask for its money back.

Ivan 9 September 2010, 11:00 pm
Peter Thatchell, why bother arresting the Pope when in ten years, if fellows like yourself get their way the pedophile priests would be hailed as the avante-garde.

Just saying 9 September 2010, 11:31 pm
The idea that a self-obsessed pervert like Tatchell gives a toss for Holocaust victims any more than he does for the victims of child abuse is hard to believe. He is just an opportunistic hate-monger, a wanna-be Titus Oates. All Catholics should pray for his conversion.

http://dolphinarium.blogspot.com/2010/09/it-is-time-society-acknowledged-truth.html

Kilbarry1 10 September 2010, 4:09 am
@Ivan and Just saying

This is the text of Peter Tatchell’s letter to The Guardian dated 26 June 1997
ROS Coward (Why Dares to Speak says nothing useful, June 23) thinks it is “shocking” that Gay Men’s Press has published a book, Dares To Speak, which challenges the assumption that all sex involving children and adults is abusive. I think it is courageous.

The distinguished psychologists and anthropologists cited in this book deserve to be heard. Offering a rational, informed perspective on sexual relations between younger and older people, they document examples of societies where consenting inter-generational sex is considered normal, beneficial and enjoyable by old and young alike.

Prof Gilbert Herdt points to the Sambia tribe of Papua New Guinea, where all young boys have sex with older warriors as part of their initiation into manhood. Far from being harmed, Prof Herdt says the boys grow up to be happy, well-adjusted husbands and fathers.

The positive nature of some child-adult sexual relationships is not confined to non-Western cultures. Several of my friends – gay and straight, male and female – had sex with adults from the ages of nine to 13. None feel they were abused. All say it was their conscious choice and gave them great joy.

While it may be impossible to condone paedophilia, it is time society acknowledged the truth that not all sex involving children is unwanted, abusive and harmful.

Peter Tatchell.

http://www.christian.org.uk/news/tatchell-reiterates-call-for-lower-age-of-consent/

Hanoi Paris Hilton 10 September 2010, 4:22 am
I vote for His Holiness to nominate Mr. Tatchell for fast track-beatitude and speedy sainthood. What could go wrong?

Ivan 10 September 2010, 5:38 am
Kilbarry thats my point, Tatchell thinks he is some kind of smarty pants, his agenda is too transparent for words. What’s the betting that he’ll care about the Holocaust, if ever Pope Benedict turns around and says that its OK to have active homosexuals in the clergy. We’ve all seen the Life or Nat Geographic articles where Stone Age numbskulls in Papua New Guinea battle each other to death, ending with the victors parading around with their dicks sheathed in bamboo. Perhaps following on his victory over the Pope, Tatchell could campaign for football hooligans to do the same.

M*o*r*g*y 10 September 2010, 12:59 pm
I see the unpleasant Legion of Mary brigades are out in force in the thread smearing Tatchell with unpleasant homophobic abuse.

what is it about theist morons and their fear of Teh Ghey?

Harry's Place actually rejected my reply to M*o*r*g*y but nevertheless, I think they published enough to cast doubts on Mr. Tatchell's credentials on this issue.


Kilbarry1 22:30 on 10 September 2010 – not accepted

@M*o*r*g*y
I see the unpleasant Legion of Mary brigades are out in force in the thread smearing Tatchell with unpleasant homophobic abuse.


I think Tatchell did a good job smearing himself in his 1997 letter to The Guardian. The kind of sick sexuality that he promoted/s(?) was popular in the 1960s and 70s but seemed to fade away afterwards. It was rather daring of Tatchell to support it openly in 1997 but I suppose he felt he was some sort of sacred (liberal) cow who could get away with anything. He wasn't far wrong either.

Friday, August 20, 2010

Peter Tatchell, the Pope and Paedophilia



















Peter Tatchell, who co-founded the gay action group "Outrage", is protesting the forthcoming visit of Pope Benedict XVI to Britain. Among other things he accuses the Pope of shielding clergy guily of child abuse from prosecution. Tatchell had a guest post on "Harry's Place" on 13 August and a very lively discussion followed that high-lighted Peter Tatchell's own views on adults and adolescents who have sex with VERY under-age children.
http://hurryupharry.org/2010/08/13/on-the-popes-state-visit-to-britain/

On the Pope’s state visit to Britain
Guest Post, August 13th 2010, 5:33 pm
Guest post from Peter Tatchell of the Protest the Pope Campaign

Text of Peter Tatchell’s speech at the Protest the Pope public meeting at the Old Town Hall, Richmond, on 12 August 2010:
................ In 1992, When he was Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, he authored a Vatican document that condemned homosexuality as an “objective disorder” and a “strong tendency ordered towards an intrinsic moral evil.” Rejecting the concept of gay human rights, the document asserted that there is no “right” to laws protecting homosexual people against discrimination, suggesting that the civil liberties of lesbians and gay men can be “legitimately limited for objectively disordered external conduct.”

The Pope has attacked same-sex marriages as “evil” and vilified supporters of gay equality as “gravely immoral.” He has also denounced homosexual equality as a “deviant trend” and condemned same-sex love as being “without any social value.” He even threatened to excommunicate Catholic legislators who voted for gay rights laws.

While condemning loving, consenting adult same-sex relations, the Pontiff played a role in shielding Catholic clergy guilty of child sex abuse from prosecution.
..........

EXTRACTS FROM “COMMENTS” .......

A Bit Dark 14 August 2010, 1:31 am

“While condemning loving, consenting adult same-sex relations, the Pontiff played a role in shielding Catholic clergy guilty of child sex abuse from prosecution.”
Peter Tatchell, 2010.

“Lee is 14. He’s been having sex with boys since the age of eight, and with men since he was 12. Lee has a serious problem. He wants a steady relationship and has been going out recently with a guy in his mid-twenties, who he met at the hairdressers. But in the eyes of the law, Lee’s partner is ‘a paedophile’ and Lee is’ a victim of child abuse’. That’s not, however, the way Lee sees it:
“I want to have a boyfriend. It’s my choice. No one’s abusing me. Why should we be treated like criminals?”.

I am sitting in the kitchen of a friend’s house talking with Lee. Wearing a white T-shirt and combat trousers, his sophisticated gay image makes him look older than 14. He comes across as bright, articulate, sure of himself, and mature beyond his years. It’s hard to imagine anyone getting away with taking advantage of him.”


Peter Tatchell, 1997

http://www.ipce.info/newsletters/e_22/2_16_Lee.htm
.................................................

Kilbarry1 14 August 2010, 10:39 am
@ A Bit Dark
Re Peter Tatchell
The 1997 article you quote by Tatchell is on the IPCE website. According it its homepage
http://www.ipce.info/ipceweb/

Welcome to the Homepage of the Ipce Web Site
"Ipce is a forum for people who are engaged in scholarly discussion about the understanding and emancipation of mutual relationships between children or adolescents and adults.

In this context, these relationships are intended to be viewed from an unbiased, non-judgmental perspective and in relation to the human rights of both the young and adult partners.

Ipce meets once every one or two years in a different country, publishes a newsletter and a web site, co-ordinates the (electronic) exchange of texts and keeps an archive of specific written publications." [among which is Peter Tatchell's article].

According to “The Free Dictionary” the definition of the acronym is

IPCE International Pedophile and Child Emancipation
Well there are other possible meanings but in the current context it is unlikely to stand for:
IPCE Independent Parametric Cost Estimate
IPCE Interprofessional Cancer Education etc
http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/IPCE

Kilbarry1 14 August 2010, 11:50 am
A month or two ago a poster on HP quoted Tatchell’s proposal that the age of consent be reduced to 14. Someone else claimed that Tatchell only means this to apply to adolescents having sex with each other. It is abundently clear that this is NOT what Tatchell means (or meant in his 1997 article):
http://www.ipce.info/newsletters/e_22/2_16_Lee.htm

I point out to Lee that an age of consent of 14 would not have been much help to him, since he was having sex from the age of eight. Even with consent at 14, most of his past sexual relationships would have remained illegal.

“Young people under 14 should be allowed to have sex with someone up to a year or so older”, he suggests. “That way they’ve got freedom, and are protected against exploitation by older men”.

Even with a permitted one year age differential, Lee’s affair [at age 10] with Andrew, who was three years older, would not have been legal. Something a bit more flexible is required.

The idea of a sliding-scale age of consent is something that OutRage! is promoting. In addition to supporting an age of consent of 14 for everyone (gay and straight), OutRage! argues that sex involving young people under 14 should not be prosecuted providing both partners consent and there is no more than three years difference in their ages.


To emphasise that “Lee” was not exceptional Tatchell pointed out that:
Lee is just one of a growing number of lesbians and gays who are coming out at an ever earlier age … twelve, thirteen and fourteen is not uncommon nowadays. Research published by Project Sigma in 1993 shows that

9 percent of gay men had their first homosexual experience by the age of 10,
19 percent by the age of 12, and
35 per cent by the age of 14.


For Peter Tatchell this is not something to be deplored. In fact the law should be changed to facilitate it! ........................................

John P. 14 August 2010 2:37 pm
Official gaydom always maintains that pedophile priests are pedopbiles because they are repressed homosexuals. The cause of that repression, and the resulting pedophilia is placed, thus, squarely at the feet of The Church.

I used to buy into that.

In my home parish a priest is on trial for abusing 13 and 14 year-old boys ( arrested last year). During the preliminary hearings it was revealed that this priest had also been involved in a long running relationship with another adult male. This guy was not abusing kids because Church teachings had “repressed” his sexuality. He was keenly aware of his orientation and far from feeling repressed, he appears to have acted on every lustful impulse he ever felt.

His taste for teenage boys, thus, was not the perverse result of repressive Church teachings. Rather it was part and parcel and a clear and unambiguous ‘celebration’ of his homosexuality.

It is estimated that up to 30% of priests are queer, with the other 70% being hetero.
Surely, if Church teachings prepressed sexuality, then both groups would be equally repressed and given, thus, to abusing minors on a roughly proportional scale.

A reasonable assumption, non?

However, the number of cases in which hetero priests abuse underage girls is far, FAR below their 70% portion of the priesthood. In fact, almost ALL of the abuse cases involve homosexual priests.

Who ever thought that the sexual repression resulting from Church teaching could be so selective?

Interesting coments from Kilbarry1 and A Bit Dark.

Monday, August 16, 2010

John Cooney - New(?) Allegations against Archbishop McQuaid

The General Humbert Summer School which is directed by John Cooney starts tomorrow in Co. Mayo. According to Phoenix magazine, John Cooney is poised to make further "revelations" about John Charles McQuaid. The following is from a discussion on the www.politics.ie website
http://www.politics.ie/current-affairs/135682-holy-father-rejects-resignation-two-dublin-bishops-10.html

Originally Posted by Kilbarry1 View Post
Slight correction. Cooney has already repeated his slander against Archbishop McQuaid at the Daniel Corkery Summer School in July - with (of course) no reaction from Diarmuid Martin. However Phoenix expect him to do so again at his own General Humbert Summer School which starts on 17 August:

http://www.irishsalem.com/individuals/writers-and-journalists/John-Cooney/cooneyvsmcquaid-30july10.php

Last Friday (23rd July 2010), the Daniel Corkery Summer School heard Cooney deliver a thundering peroration of his allegations against McQuaid with what he said is additional evidence and the promise of further revealations to come in his forthcoming book, The Curse Of McQuaid. His book, Cooney claims, 'will provide numerous sordid details of McQuaid's dark secret.'

Cooney's speech last week also referred to what he claimed was further evidence of McQuaid's sexual activity. These, the journalist said, were advances made, not to children but to a young priest and 2 clerical students resulting in 2 Garda investigations into these allegations made in the the 1960's and early '70's. Cooney told his audience that the investigations cleared McQuaid - unsurprisingly, given the period - but he also claimed that the files have gone missing. Cooney also referred to other evidence he says he has unearthed in recent years which provide similar evidence against McQuaid.

Expect more fireworks at Cooney's own summer school, the General Humbert Summer School beginning 17 August.


By the sound of it Cooney's LATEST (?) allegtions against the late Archbishop are not exactly new. They sound very like issues that were treated by Jody Corcoran then political editor of the Sunday Independent in an article dated 7 November 1999.
http://www.irishsalem.com/individuals/writers-and-journalists/John-Cooney/gardainvestigationcleared-07nov99.php

The article begins:

A GARDA investigation into allegations of illegal homosexual acts and paedophilia at two Dublin diocesan colleges more than 20 years ago [i.e. in the 1970s] cleared the late Archbishop John Charles McQuaid of any involvement, the Sunday Independent has learned. The now retired Garda detective inspector who led the investigation said three students were dismissed from the colleges, and while Dr McQuaid was also investigated, no evidence of any wrongdoing on his part was discovered.

In the course of the investigation, the gardaí questioned a gay student priest about an incident in Lourdes which involved Dr McQuaid, but found no evidence of wrongdoing. The incident formed a small part of a more extensive Garda investigation into what were then illegal homosexual acts between two student priests at All Hallows College in Drumcondra, Dublin, and a third student at the nearby Clonliffe College. That investigation had its origins in an anonymous letter to the then head of All Hallows which contained unproven allegations of child sexual abuse against the two All Hallows students.


This sounds very like Cooney's latest allegations as outlined in Phoenix Magazine recently. I note that he says that the investigations cleared McQuaid "unsurprisingly, given the period". Is he claiming a cover up by the Gardai and by the Attorney General's office and if so why is he saying this now? The retired Garda detective inspector who carried out the investigations was 83 when he spoke to the Sunday Independent in 1999.

The 1999 article ended:

Mr Devane prepared a file which was forwarded to his chief superintendent at Whitehall and to the Attorney-General. Charges were never brought. Mr Devane is adamant that no pressure was applied by the Church authorities to drop the charges. ``I recommended that no charges be brought. I thought they had been through enough,'' he said. ``They were thrown out of the college, their parents were involved and, anyway, they would have probably got the Probation Act. There was no point in putting them through all that the publicity and everything.''

Cooney's General Humbert Summer School starts tomorrow so perhaps all will be revealed then!

Saturday, August 14, 2010

Peter Tatchell



There is an guest post on the "Harry's Place" blog by Gay activist Peter Tatchell entitled "On the Pope’s state visit to Britain". It contains the text of Peter Tatchell’s speech at the Protest the Pope public meeting at the Old Town Hall, Richmond, on 12 August 2010 which begins

Pope Benedict comes to Britain next month. As democrats, we believe he has every right to come here and express his opinions. But we also have a right to protest against his often harsh, extreme views. We have a right to say that he is not welcome.

The Protest the Pope campaign is calling on the British government to disassociate itself from the Pope’s intolerant teachings on issues such as women’s rights, gay equality and the use of condoms to prevent the spread of HIV. On these and many other issues, Benedict is out of step with the majority of British people, including most Catholics.
..... and includes the following gem:

While condemning loving, consenting adult same-sex relations, the Pontiff played a role in shielding Catholic clergy guilty of child sex abuse from prosecution.

There are 32 responses to date including the following two:

[A] A Bit Dark… 14 August 2010, 1:31 am

“While condemning loving, consenting adult same-sex relations, the Pontiff played a role in shielding Catholic clergy guilty of child sex abuse from prosecution.”


Peter Tatchell, 2010.

“Lee is 14. He’s been having sex with boys since the age of eight, and with men since he was 12. Lee has a serious problem. He wants a steady relationship and has been going out recently with a guy in his mid-twenties, who he met at the hairdressers. But in the eyes of the law, Lee’s partner is ‘a paedophile’ and Lee is’ a victim of child abuse’. That’s not, however, the way Lee sees it:

“I want to have a boyfriend. It’s my choice. No one’s abusing me. Why should we be treated like criminals?”.

I am sitting in the kitchen of a friend’s house talking with Lee. Wearing a white T-shirt and combat trousers, his sophisticated gay image makes him look older than 14. He comes across as bright, articulate, sure of himself, and mature beyond his years. It’s hard to imagine anyone getting away with taking advantage of him.”


Peter Tatchell, 1997

http://www.ipce.info/newsletters/e_22/2_16_Lee.htm

[B] Kilbarry1 14 August 2010, 10:39 am

@ A Bit Dark

Re Peter Tatchell
The 1997 article you quote by Tatchell is on the IPCE website. According to its homepage http://www.ipce.info/ipceweb/

Welcome to the Homepage of the Ipce Web Site

Ipce is a forum for people who are engaged in scholarly discussion about the understanding and emancipation of mutual relationships between children or adolescents and adults.

In this context, these relationships are intended to be viewed from an unbiased, non-judgmental perspective and in relation to the human rights of both the young and adult partners.

Ipce meets once every one or two years in a different country, publishes a newsletter and a web site, co-ordinates the (electronic) exchange of texts and keeps an archive of specific written publications.
[among which is Peter Tatchell's article].

According to “The Free Dictionary” the definition of the acronym is

IPCE International Pedophile and Child Emancipation

Well there are other possible meanings but in the current context it is unlikely to stand for:
IPCE Independent Parametric Cost Estimate
IPCE Interprofessional Cancer Education etc
http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/IPCE

Wednesday, August 11, 2010

Bishop John Magee and Ian Elliot

The folllowing is an extract from my article on Bishop John Magee. It may help to explain the hostile report produced by Ian Elliott, chief executive of the National Board for the Safeguarding of Children

http://www.irishsalem.com/individuals/accused/bishop-john-magee/index.php

Ian Elliott and Bishop Magee
A clue to the attitude of Ian Elliott towards Bishop Magee can be gained from an episode in April 2008 in which Mr Elliott was quoted in the Sunday Tribune (20 April) as saying: "The national board for the safeguarding of children in the Catholic Church has been made aware of issues surrounding the handling of allegations of abuse within the Diocese of Cloyne. The board has not received the full information and documentation requested of the diocese. We are trying hard to resolve these difficulties and have sought an urgent meeting with the diocese to progress these matters further."

In its statement in response, the Diocese of Cloyne said that Bishop Magee and other representatives had met Mr Elliot on two occasions. "These meetings were cordial and productive," said the statement, adding that Bishop Magee later wrote to Mr Elliott offering to meet him on either April 4th, 7th, 14th or 21st as well as promising to co-operate fully and provide him with access to all relevant files. Mr Elliott wrote back on April 14th, indicating that he was unable to fix a date for a meeting until after April 17th, and that he would be in contact to discuss other possible dates. The Diocese statement said his comments were therefore "surprising".

Monday, August 2, 2010

Bishop John Magee and Cloyne Report

I completed the main draft of my article concerning Bishop John Magee yesterday as Judge Yvonne Murphy's Report on the Cloyne diocese is due to be published this autumn. I would expect it to ignore most of the salient issues e.g. the previous false allegations of sex abuse directed at Bishop Magee in 1994 and 1999. Anyway the following are the last two sections of my essay which is at:
http://www.irishsalem.com/individuals/accused/bishop-john-magee/index.php

AFTERMATH TO PUBLICATION OF NBSC REPORT IN DECEMBER 2008

Prior to December 2008 the Gardai had submitted several files to the Director of Public Prosecutions in relation to allegations against two priests of the Cloyne Diocese. In every case the Director stated that no criminal prosecution should be brought. In December 2008 Garda Superintendent Pat Carey confirmed that there were no current investigations relating to alleged child abuse by priests in the Cloyne diocese.

After Bishop Magee published the NBSC Report in December 2008 there were a spate of further criminal allegations - including one against the Bishop himself. It may be that Bishop Magee published the Report in the expectation that it would "heal the pain" of the alleged victims and "promote reconciliation" with them. If so, he was very much mistaken!

CONCLUSION - THE BISHOPS AND THE NUNS

In the early stages of child abuse hysteria in Ireland the Bishops - including John Magee himself - were prepared to defend the innocent even to the extent of suing newspapers and TV stations that published false allegations of child abuse. The Christian Brothers did likewise - at least to some extent. However the Sisters of Mercy grovelled from the beginning and went out of their way to apologise to people who were making, what were obviously, false claims. (Their rationale seems to be that false accusers are suffering deep pain and the way to heal their pain is to apologise to them.)

In 2004 two events combined to end all ecclesiastical resistance to false allegations. These were the appointment of Diarmuid Martin as Archbishop of Dublin and a further dramatic apology by the Merciful Sisters. After this the Bishops - led by Martin - abandoned any effort to defend their priests; in effect they adopted the policy of the nuns. This is what Bishop Magee did in December 2008 when he published a report that both slandered his own priests and made it impossible for them to sue the report's authors.

The effects of this policy of appeasement were catastrophic for Magee, for the Catholic Church and indeed for all falsely accused persons. Of course the Sisters disclaim all responsibility and blame the Bishops! In an article in the Irish Times on 14 November 2009, Patsy McGarry quotes Bishop Willie Walsh (a great admirer of Archbishop Martin):
He had been speaking recently to the leadership team of the Mercy congregation’s southern province, “women who have given their lives in the service of the church”, and who were “very broken, very sad”. They felt “let down by us, the bishops”.

Bishop Willie - like Martin - is a gutless wonder who never condemns false allegations of child abuse. So it is unlikely that the "very broken, very sad" Sisters whom he quotes, are blaming himself. Presumably they are blaming those Bishops who originally defended the innocent!

No doubt every ruling class becomes morally corrupt before it becomes extinct but even a Franz Kafka would find it difficult to do justice to the decadence of the leadership of the Catholic Church in Ireland today.

Kafkaesque = "Marked by surreal distortion and often a sense of impending danger" (Wikipedia definition).

Wednesday, July 21, 2010

Labour Councillors Join Mob Harrassment of Innocent Family

Councillor Nicky Kelly and fellow Councillors accept petition at Redcross Commumity Hall.

The following is from a discussion on www.politics.ie regarding a mother and her four children who have been hounded out of four houses in Co Wicklow because her husband was convicted of a sex offence against a minor 18 YEARS AGO! (He got a suspended sentence of six months at the time).

Labour Councillors Join Mob Harrassment of Innocent Family

The family have been hounded out of Kilcoole, Redcross, Rathnew and Ashford. I think they are all in the Archdiocese of Dublin which covers most of Co. Wicklow as well. Ashford certainlly is and that is where their house was burned down.

Archbishop Diarmuid Martin has become a great hero of the liberal media because of the way he has dealt with allegations of child sexual abuse. He cannot make a speech without denouncing the evils of abuse and apologising for the way the Church dealt with them in the past. He even put pressure on Bishop Martin Drennan to resign even though NO criticism had been made of him in the Murphy Report. (Like the Wicklow mob, the Archbishop seems to believe in guilt by association.)

http://www.irishsalem.com/individuals/Politicians%20and%20Others/archbishop-martin/index.php

Would it be too much to ask the Archbishop to condemn the behaviour of the people who hound an innocent mother and her four children? The mob are abusing these innocents. Moreover the hysteria and fanaticism generated by the mob will rebound on real victims of child sexual abuse in the future. Cynicism is what normally follows after Hysteria.

Saturday, July 10, 2010

Bishop John Magee and False Allegations of Child Abuse

The following is my comment on an article in Ciaran’s Peculier [sic] Blog
http://ciaranparker.com/2008/12/22/news-from-nowhere/#comment-1469

QUOTE:No one can say that Bishop Magee has been guilty of any wrong-doing in the diocese of Cloyne. However, I knew of a priest who once served under him. This man was in many ways an archetypal Irish Catholic priest, middle-aged, and with somewhat prejudiced views about the modern world. However, when asked about Dr Magee, he said but one thing. “That man is evil.”

And then again there were rumours, only rumours, that the bishop of Cloyne liked to pay social visits to London, but not to visit the Victoria and Albert museum or take in a show. ENDQUOTE

Is this what you mean by any chance?
“Guardian Apology to Bishops for Paedophile Ring Claim [1994]”
http://www.irishsalem.com/individuals/accused/bishop-john-magee/TheGuardianandBishopMagee.php

The following is an extract from an article by Sam Smyth in the Sunday Independent on 10 April 1994:

“Eight days ago an article by Susie MacKenzie in The Guardian weekend supplement about celibacy and the Catholic priesthood made a reference to a bishop’s involvement in a paedophile ring. It outraged the Catholic Hierarchy who apparently considered taking a class libel suit on behalf of the country’s 30 bishops. On Friday the Bishop’s Conference announced that they had made a formal complaint to the Guardian and Bishop Thomas Flynn said they were “highly offended”.

“The Guardian said it is taking the complaint “very seriously”. THE SOURCE OF THE INFORMATION ON WHICH THE ‘BISHOP AND PAEDOPHILE RING’ ALLEGATION WAS MADE IS UNDERSTOOD TO BE A PRIEST. [My emphasis].

“According to research, it would not be surprising if there was one homosexual among any 30 men, although there is not one iota of evidence to suggest that there is a gay Irish bishop. BUT ALL THE RUMOURS CIRCULATED TO SUGGEST THAT THERE IS A PRACTISING HOMOSEXUAL AMONG THE IRISH CATHOLIC HIERARCHY HAVE PROVED TO BE FALSE – AND THERE MIGHT WELL HAVE BEEN MALICE IN THE MANUFACTURING OF THEM.”

Thursday, July 1, 2010

Scandal In Belgian Church (2) - Cardinal Danneels

The following is the part of the discussion regarding Rod Drehers article Danneels Approved Pedophilic Cathchism? (url is at end)

Perry Bulwer
June 30, 2010 2:57 PM

http://www.perrybulwer.com/religion-and-child-abuse-news

Rod, the link you provide at the top of the article is now dead. It seems the article you took those quotations from has been removed from that website, so it's a good thing you quoted much of it. Dead links to news articles is one reason I started keeping a blog archive of news articles related to child abuse in religious contexts.


Rory Connor
July 1, 2010 3:40 AM

http://www.irishsalem.com

Perry
The article "The Fall of the Belgian Church" by Alexandra Colen is on my website. The url is
http://www.irishsalem.com/international-controversies/europe/fallofbelgianchurch-24jun10.php

and I have also linked it to its original publication in "The Brussels Journal".

The reason the link at the top of this article no longer works may be because Alexandra Colen's article contains a copy of one of the offending illustrations from the Begian catechism. This drawing showed a naked baby girl saying: “Stroking my pussy makes me feel groovy,” “I like to take my knickers off with friends,” “I want to be in the room when mum and dad have sex.” Panic about paedophilia has reached such a level that people may be afraid that showing the ilustration will attract paedophiles.

Yet in the 1990s Alexandra Colen was sneered at by the liberal media in Belgium because she objected to these illustrations and the message they conveyed!

Read more: http://blog.beliefnet.com/roddreher/2010/06/danneels-approved-pedophilic-catechism_comments.html#ixzz0sTcZaYEJ

Scandal in Belgian Church - Cardinal Godfried Danneels

This is a Comment I made on Rod Dreher's Blog BeliefNet that sums up my attitude to the scandal in the Belgian Church. His article is called Danneels approved pedophilic catechism? and I wrote this on 30 June 2010:

I have gathered together a dozen different artcles on this scandal on my website www.irishsalem.com. The url of the relevant section is
http://www.irishsalem.com/international-controversies/europe/index.php

I have not had time to do a commentary yet but one thing that strikes me is the similarity to the Father Paul Shanley scandal in the USA. Shanley was a promiscous homosexual and also a "gay" icon in the 1960s and 70s. Many conservative Catholics complained bitterly to the Church authorities about him and eventually, in 1979, he was removed from his "gay outreach" project in Boston. He was not however, removed from the priesthood. Even his supporters acknowledge that he was probably having sex with adolescent boys who were about (or below) the age of consent but "liberals" didn't bother about that at the time.

Then in 2002 Shanley was accused of having raped FOUR eight year children decades before. His 4 accusers - all of whom knew each other - declared that they had "repressed" their memories for decades but had just "recovered" them. All of Shanley's gay and liberal friends believed this proposterous story and deserted him. He was convicted on Recovered Memory evidence alone and the Massacheutetts Supreme Court recently refused his appeal and affirmed the validity of this voodoo brain science.

Cardinal Danneels is no Paul Shanley in his personal life but there are certain similarities. Belgian liberals loved the "liberal" Cardinal and sneered at his conservative critics - like Alexandra Colen when she protested at this repulsive "catechism". Now they have turned on the Church and see nothing wrong in desecrating tombs in order to search for hidden documents - straight out of the Da Vinci Code! The Belgian Church degraded itself by adopting the values of the world and now the world despises it and wants to destroy it. It is an end without honour or dignity.

Read more: http://blog.beliefnet.com/roddreher/2010/06/danneels-approved-pedophilic-catechism_comments.html#ixzz0sM7wlGOH

Tuesday, June 29, 2010

John Cooney and John Charles McQuaid

The following is the introduction to the section on my website http://www.irishsalem.com re John Cooney

http://www.irishsalem.com/individuals/writers-and-journalists/John-Cooney/index.php

John Cooney and John Charles McQuaid

John Cooney is currently Religious Affairs correspondent for the Irish Independent, having held a similar position in the Irish Times during the 1970s. He is best known for his 1999 biography of John Charles McQuaid who was Archbishop of Dublin from 1940 to 1972 and was Ireland's best known Catholic prelate since independence. In the book "John Charles McQuaid: Ruler of Catholic Ireland", Cooney depicts him as a homesexual paedophile. The allegation is rejected by all historians and almost all other journalists (with Irish Times jounalist Fintan O'Toole being a partial exception.) Even historians who praise the remainder of the book, say that the child abuse allegations are nonsence and that Cooney should have omitted them. However the controversy did not prevent Cooney's appointment to the Religious Affairs post in the Independent in 2004.

See also the section "John Charles McQuaid" in the "Accused Individuals" part of the website.

Sunday, June 27, 2010

"Bishop" Pat Buckley, Cardinal Cahal Daly and Father Vincent McKinley



"Bishop" Pat Buckley



This is part of a discussion on "Bishop" Pat Buckley and Cardinal Cahal Daly on the Politics.ie website in June 2010

Original post by Kilbarry1 [Myself] on 15 June 2010

"Bishop" Pat Buckley and Cardinal Cahal Daly
The following are a couple of extracts from "Bishop" Pat Buckley's website. They claim to explain why, in 1986, the then Bishop Cahal Daly dismissed him as a Catholic curate from the diocese of Down and Connor (based in Belfast). The reason seems to be strongly linked to "Bishop Pat's" difficulties with the late Father Vincent McKinley. Indeed if Father McKinley were still alive he might well raise some legal issues about the following:
http://www.bishoppatbuckley.co.uk/daly.htm

WHY CARDINAL CAHAL DALY SACKED BISHOP PAT
Daly became the Bishop of Down and Connor (Belfast) in late 1982. Bishop Pat had been in St. Peter’s Cathedral Belfast as curate since August 1978.

When Daly took over Belfast he asked all the priests in the Diocese to write a report for him about the state of things in the Diocese. Over a 4 week period Bishop Pat prayed about this and eventually posted Daly a very honest and comprehensive report on the 7th November 1982. In his report Bishop Pat made the following comments and suggestions:

1. That Daly should abandon his luxurious palace in Belfast’s stockbroker belt and come and live at his cathedral among the poor as would Christ.

2. That Daly should renovate the Diocese’s churches in line with Vatican 11

3. That rules about marriages etc be implemented on a Diocesan level so that people would not be encountering difficult priests abusing their power.

4. That the laity should be more involved in every aspect of Church life.

5. That priests should be appointed on merit and not by age seniority.

6. That Daly and the Church should do more to reach out to the alienated youth.

BISHOP PAT PHYSICALLY BEATEN UP BY PRIEST:
About this time the Parish Priest of the Cathedral Father Vincent McKinley was bullying both the priests in the Cathedral Presbytery and the people of the parish. Bishop Pat reported this to Daly.

As a result Father McKinley jumped on Bishop Pat one night in the presbytery dining room and physically beat and kicked him repeatedly!

Bishop Pat reported this to Bishop Daly who replied: “Father McKinley is a saint and you have a persecution complex”. Bishop Pat later regretted not calling in the police.

Bishop Pat was banned from eating in the cathedral priest’s dining room and had to eat in the kitchen with the lady housekeeper. At night when Father McKinley would get drunk he would kick Bishop Pat’s bedroom door and sing pornographic rugby songs about “ w***ing” and “f***g” !!! He was determined to break Bishop Pat’s spirit.

When Bishop Pat later organised a big clean up of the infamous Divis Flats complex which surrounded the presbytery Father McKinley stood at the presbytery window giving Bishop Pat and the parishioners the 2 finger “f*** off” sign.

Daly and the clergy became furious with Bishop Pat. In February 1983 Daly banished Bishop Pat to the furthest parish in the Diocese – Attical – on the top of the Mountains of Mourne. .........
"Bishop" Pat seems to have been watching too much Father Ted but there is more to it than that!

Also Posted by Kilbarry1 on 15 June 2010
This is from my own website and may provide a better explanation of why Father McKinley fell out with Bishop Pat:
http://www.irishsalem.com/individuals/Politicians%20and%20Others/pat-buckley/bishoppatswebsite-june10.php

Note regarding Father Vincent McKinley and Gerry Fitt from Debate in British House of Lords, 17 May 1985

Annie Maguire - Hansard HL Deb 17 May 1985

vol 463 cc1384-408

Lord Fitt
  rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will reopen the case of Annie Maguire and her family who were convicted and sentenced in 1976 ...........................................

Sir John first took an interest in this case not through me but through a Unionist lady whom he knew in Northern Ireland. This lady was acquainted with a Catholic priest from St. Peter's Church in West Belfast. This Catholic priest, whose name was Father Vincent McKinley, made the headlines as a result of another terrorist act. In that case a terrorist by the name of Delaney carried a bomb on a train from Lisburn to Dublin. The bomb exploded prematurely and killed the terrorist himself and three or four innocent people. [This was in January 1980.] When the remains of that terrorist's body were found, his relatives wanted him to be buried from St. Peter's Church. Father Vincent said, "I'm not letting the remains of that terrorist inside the door of my church". That shows how opposed Father Vincent is to acts of terrorism.

That action by Father Vincent caused great controversy, and he went through an awful time for a number of months because he refused to allow the remains of that terrorist in his church. So Father Vincent knew the Unionist lady of whom I spoke, and she then spoke to Sir John Biggs-Davison. .......................
Annie Maguire (Hansard, 17 May 1985)

Original post by michaelhenry 
was there any history of funny goings on with these two.

Reply by Kilbarry1
to michaelhenry
I would say that Father McKinley was not the kind of man who would enjoy "Bishop" Pat's company. The bit about Buckley being banished from the priests' dining room and having to eat in the kitchen with the lady housekeeper is probably true. Some of the rest comes from "Father Ted".

HOWEVER - moving from farce to tragedy - Father McKinley's difficulties with the residents of Divis Flats were NOT caused by his failure to join Buckey's "big clean up" operation.

Originally Posted by Cruimh (quoting Post by Kilbarry1)
"Indeed if Father McKinley were still alive he might well raise some legal issues."

And what has this rubbish to do with Current affairs? To cause trouble If there is a possibility of legal issues why post it on this site ?

Reply by Kilbarry1 to Cruimh
Father McKinley is dead and I am criticising Pat Buckley not him. It is "Bishop" Buckley who would be likely to have legal problems if Fr McKinley was still alive. However the Bishop is frequently in the news and the Irish Times and Sunday Tribune definitely consider him to be part of current affairs.

Originally Posted by George Washington
This carry on has been referenced in one of Martin Dillon's books before, "God and the Gun" I think

Reply by Kilbarry1 to George Washington
I didn't read the book but even checking out the Internet, I came across this quotation from An Phoblacht dated 28 January 1999 regarding the IRA man who was killed in the explosion in in January 1980:
"Under pressure from the British the Catholic Church attempted to deny the Delaney family their right to bury their son as a republican. His coffin draped in the Irish flag would not be permitted into the Corpus Christi church.

Fr Des Wilson interceded however, exposed their hypocrisy and officiated himself in the family home."

If this is what republicans were saying nearly 20 years later, you can imagine the pressure Fr McKinley was under in 1980.

The media are prepared to take "Bishop" Pat seriously (e.g. in reporting his recent Gay Marriage), because they have the same attitude to the Church that he has. The truth does not matter in their eyes

Original post by Cruimh
Link to this "Story" in either the IT or Sunday Tribune this year then ?
If not then you are trolling.

My Reply (as Kilbarry1) to Cruimh
I don't mean that this particular story was carried in the Irish Times or Sunday Tribune this year. However the story of Bishop Pat's On-Off-On-Again gay marriage was carried by both - and by lots of other "serious" newspapers as well.

The following is a summary:
Bishop" Pat Buckley, Cardinal Cahal Daly, Cardinal Desmond Connell, Eduardo Yango, Fr Vincent McKinley

In January 2010 "Bishop" Pat gave an exclusive interview to the Sunday Tribune in which he proclaimed his "deep love" for his Filipino boyfriend Eduardo Yango (32) and announced that they would be married on 8 February. Other media were referred to Max Clifford, who was handling publicity surrounding the nuptials. His announcement received world-wide publicity - not least in his boyfriend's homeland. However on the appointed day he had to announce a postponement.
"We have had 10 days of intense media interest and, while I have been used to dealing with the media for 25 years, Eduardo has no experience of the media and has found the intrusion very stressful. He is also a very private person and comes from a culture in the Philippines where family and personal issues are handled very discreetly and privately.”
(He had apparently forgotten to tell Edwardo about Max Clifford.)
They were eventually married in March - albeit with much reduced media coverage.

The above is essentially a non-story but the fact that "respectable" newspapers gave it huge coverage says a lot about the state of mind of our up-market journalists. "Bishop" Pat is not just an isolated idiot.

Query by Cruimh
So why have you posted this bilge about supposed events of over 30 years ago in current affairs?

My Reply to Cruimh
"Supposed" events? When Hansard's account of a House of Lord's debate is in basic agreement with An Phoblacht (regarding Father McKinley), then we are talking about real events. "Bishop" Pat is obviously talking through his hat. Yet newspapers like the Irish Times, Sunday Tribune and Belfast Telegraph STILL take him seriously and even run "exclusives" on his gay marriage that could be published unchanged in the News of the World. (The Sunday Tribune exclusive was entitled  Rebel Cleric's Gay Marriage Will 'Infuriate' Church Heads - by their Northern Editor Suzanne Breen)
This says a great deal about the corruption of the "respectable" media and that is definitely part of current affairs.

Incidentally the fact that the media takes Buckley seriously does not do the man himself any good in the long run. After the death of Cardinal Daly the Irish Times published the following letter from Bishop Pat under the heading "Legacy of Cardinal Daly" (Jan 13, 2010)

Cardinal Cahal Daly, died 31 December 2009

Legacy of Cardinal Daly - The Irish Times - Wed, Jan 13, 2010

Madam, – I am a victim of Cardinal Cahal Daly, and I have found his death and recent glorification in The Irish Times and elsewhere very traumatic and painful.

By summarily dismissing me as curate of Larne and from the Diocese of Down and Connor in the summer of 1986 Cahal Daly abused his authority over me.

As a result, I developed the stress-related and chronic medical condition Crohn’s disease and have suffered ecclesiastical exile with its attendant emotional and mental anguish for 23 years.
I was given two reasons for my dismissal.

One, I was guilty of being critical of my church and ecclesiastical superiors.

Second, I was guilty of expressing those criticisms to journalists and in the media.

In the summer of 1986, I learned of my removal from Larne and the name of my replacement not from Cahal Daly personally but from the morning news on RTÉ Radio 1 as I travelled in my car.
Each year since my “sacking”, I wrote to Cardinal Daly suggesting that he and I be reconciled before going to meet our maker. My letters were ignored.

At the time of my “sacking” Father Brendan Smyth was ministering in Down and Connor with the knowledge and consent of its then bishop, Cahal Daly.

Cahal Daly was also a senior member of the Irish Bishops Conference from 1967 to 1996, all during the time when the Irish bishops were dismissing the claims of victims, were not informing the Garda of priest abusers and were insuring their dioceses against possible claims by victims.

As he “lay in state” in my former parish, St Peter’s Cathedral, Belfast, a parishioner in her 80s telephoned me to let me know that she was thinking of me at what must be a painful time for me.
She finished her call with the words: “I wonder how many secrets he has taken with him to his grave”?
– Yours, etc,

Bishop PAT BUCKLEY,
The Oratory,
Larne,
Co Antrim.


Further Query by Cruimh
How does a letter from 5 months ago have any bearing on whether or not this bilge from 30 years ago belongs in current affairs ?

My Reply to Cruimh
The main point I am making is that our "respectable" media are grossly corrupt and insist on treating the doings of an idiot as serious news. They publish tripe that would not be out of place in the News of the World. The point of the letter is that by encouraging "Bishop" Pat, they are not doing him any favours e.g.
I am a victim of Cardinal Cahal Daly, and I have found his death and recent glorification in The Irish Times and elsewhere very traumatic and painful. By summarily dismissing me as curate of Larne and from the Diocese of Down and Connor in the summer of 1986 Cahal Daly abused his authority over me. As a result, I developed the stress-related and chronic medical condition Crohn’s disease and have suffered ecclesiastical exile with its attendant emotional and mental anguish for 23 years.

(I quoted from Buckley's current website regarding Cardinal Daly and Father McKinley to demonstrate that Buckley is an idiot.)

Perhaps this thread could be put under "Media" but the corruption of the Irish Times, Tribune etc IS part of current affairs.

Still another query from Cruimh.
How does posting tripe from a non-media website about events in 1978 qualify as "Current affairs as presented by the  "respectable" media " ?

My FINAL Reply to Cruimh
The "tripe" from Buckley's current website demonstrates that he is an imbecile - and this has been obvious for a very long time. The fact that "respectable" media take him seriously and publish "exclusives" about him worthy of the UK gutter press, is an indication that our serious newspapers are descending to the level of the News of the World. THAT certainly qualifies as a "Current Affair

On a related  note the following is from the Sunday Tribune article on Bishop Pat on 31st January last:
When asked how his marriage would be viewed in loyalist Larne, Buckley said: "Larne is 83% Protestant, and has a fair share of Free Presbyterians. But I've lived here 25 years and served on the council, so I suppose I've become part of the furniture.

I sometimes wonder about that.
Are the Protestants of Larne
(a) very tolerant OR
(b) Bishop Pat is so far off their radar that they couldn't care less OR
(c) they see Bishop  Pat as a Useful Idiot who discredits the Catholic Church.

So far as our "respectable" journalists are concerned, it is definitely (c) but they degrade themselves in the process!

Saturday, June 26, 2010

Bishop Willie Walsh, Patsy McGlinchey and Archbishop Martin


Bishop Walsh Supports Archbishop's Courageous Comments


The Clare People, Tuesday, 11 May 2010

Bishop Willie Walsh has come out in support of Archbishop Diarmuid Martin's comments that strong forces in the Catholic Church wanted the truth about clerical abuse scandals kept hidden. “I would agree I think generally with what the Archbishop was saying that our handling of child sex abuse issue in the past was catastrophic and that there is still a good deal of denial,” the Bishop told RTE. “There is a crisis of faith in Ireland and I think we are not fully facing up to it. I think in many ways there is denial in relation to the issue of child sex abuse and there’s denial in relation to the crisis of faith. I think it was a very powerful and courageous talk by the Archbishop and largely I would agree.” Bishop Walsh said he had also been discouraged with the response of the church hierarchy following the child abuse inquiries. He also suggested that if he had been a bishop in the 1970s he would have made a catastrophic mess of handling child abuse allegations.

breakingnews.ie
http://www.clarepeople.com/index.php/201005111267/bishop-walsh-supports-archbishops-courageous-comments
COMMENT:

The folllowing Comment was first published and then removed by The Clare People. Perhaps Bishop Willie, who is so careful not to hurt the feelings of false accusers by defending the innocent, is touchy when people criticise his own behaviour.

Willie Walsh has been a great media favourite since he became Bishop of Killaloe in 1995. He has frequently denounced the failures of the institutional Church in dealing with child abuse, apologised to victims, gone on pilgrimages of repentence etc.

Oddly enough he HAS "made a catastrophic mess of handling child abuse allegations" and it wasn't in the 1970s either! I am referring to Bishop Willie's patronage of a school where dozens of teachers were falsely accused of child abuse and for 13 years the Bishop did – and said – nothing.

Briefly Patrick McGlinchey was teaching in a school for mentally handicapped children when one mother accused him of child abuse in March 1997. (That was 2 years after Walsh became Bishop). There was an immediate outbreak of hysteria and practically every male teacher in the school was accused. One pupil accused 17 teachers, another accused 31 and McGlinchey himself was accused by 45 pupils. He was physically assaulted by parents and his solicitor was also accused of child abuse. After a 19 day trial in 2002, the jury acquitted him in less than 2 hours. However the school refused to take him back and he had to get an order in the High Court in May 2009 quashing his suspension. The High Court had to order the school to hold an inquiry.

40 people took CIVIL proceedings against Mr. McGlinchey. Half of them were struck out in 2000, several more after his acquital and the last ones in January 2010 i.e. 13 years after the initial allegations.

For all these 13 years Bishop Willlie remained silent. He is great at taking part in campaigns that the liberal media approve of, but condemning false allegations of child abuse does not come into that category. After all the school was founded by nuns and one of the originally accused was also a nun. That’s not something that Bishop Willie wanted to get involved in! It remains to be seen if his successor will do any better.

I have dealt with this issue on my website www.irishsalem.com The link is
http://www.irishsalem.com/individuals/accused/patsy-mcglinchey/ ...

Rory Connor , June 01, 2010

Friday, June 11, 2010

Archbishop Diarmuid Martin

I have just finished my profile of Diarmuid Martin on www.irishsalem.com - well for the time being anyway). This is the Introduction:

Archbishop Diarmuid Martin

Diarmuid Martin was consecrated Archbishop of Dublin in April 2004 - about the same time that John Cooney was appointed Religious Affairs correspondent for the Irish Independent. He seems never to have made any comment on Cooney's allegation that Martin great predecessor John Charles McQuaid was a homosexual paedophile. In fact the two seem to have a very friendly relationship - based on the Archbishop's efforts to tackle the issue of child sex abuse by Catholic clergy. The Archbishop's method seems to be to accept ANY allegation at face value and treat a priest as guilty until proven innocent.

The Archbishop has also made friends with liberal journalists by declining to criticise homosexual acts or the Government's proposal to give "gay" civil unions a status very close to marriage.

Shortly after he became Archbishop, Diarmuid Martin held a two- hour meeting with Kathy O'Beirne who told of rapes, beatings and torture she said she had witnessed some 30 years before in a Magdalene Laundry. After the meeting she told the Irish Independent that she and the other girls in care were subject to regular abuse at the hands of religious members and lay people in the laundries. She herself was regularly beaten. One night, she said she watched in horror as a 14-year-old friend was repeatedly raped by five men. However she was now confident that, with the help of Archbishop Martin, the truth will be told. "When I saw him on Wednesday, a feeling of great relief came over me. I could see the compassion and pain on his face," she said.

Kathy O'Beirne was never in any Magdalene institution. The Archbishop's "compassion" for a false accuser is the obverse of his complete lack of concern for his falsely accused priests.

In June 2007, Paul Anderson was convicted of falsely accusing a priest of raping him while giving him prayer tuition 25 years previously. In a statement to the court the priest said that as a result of Anderson and the One-in-Four group going to the Archbishop of Dublin, he was instantly suspended from ministry. "Without any due process, my diocese - in this Guantanamo Bay reaction - had me stand aside from my work as a priest. I had to leave my house and home and stay with family and friends, and I lost almost a year out of my pastoral work." He described the allegations against him as being like a case of armed robbery, with the accuser using his name and reputation in order to extract money from the Church.

The most egregious example is the Archbishop's treatment of retired auxiliary Bishop Dermot O'Mahony. The Archbishop removed Bishop O'Mahony from his position as director of the archdiocese's pilgrimage to Lourdes on the basis that “I regret that you did not express any public clarification or remorse or apology” (letter dated 2 December 2009). However Bishop O’Mahony had sent a statement to the Archbishop’s Director of Communications Annette O’Donnell on 27 October 2009 which concluded : “I profoundly regret that any action or inaction of mine should have contributed to the suffering of even a single child. I want to apologise for my failures from the bottom of my heart”. The statement was not published by the Communications Office but Annette O'Donnell confirmed that the Archbishop had seen it. He made no apology to Dermot O'Mahony and indeed continued to criticise him.

In November 2009 the Archbishop invited the Bishop of Galway Martin Drennan who had previously been an auxiliary Bishop of Dublin to "consider his position" after the publication of the Murphy Report. While the Report mentions Bishop Drennan, it makes no criticism whatsoever of his conduct! In order to consolidate his status as a media hero, does the Archbishop want to hand the media as many heads as possible on a platter?

On 10 May 2010 the Archbishop gave a speech to the Knights of Columbanus in which he spoke about the way "Church academics and church publicists can today calmly act as pundits on the roots of the sexual abuse scandals in the church as if they were totally extraneous to the scandal". He gave no indication of whom he meant. There was a mysterious passage that made media headlines about "strong forces which would prefer that the truth (about child abuse) did not emerge." What "forces"? Archbishop Martin did not provide the answer. Pundits speculated that he meant "forces" like Cardinal Sean Brady, and even the Pope himself. It is more likely that he meant his own critics like Bishop O' Mahony and Bishop Drennan. Perhaps this is the Archbishop's way of getting back at them while generating publicity for himself? Even some of his media supporters described the speech as meaningless and child abuse watchdog Ian Elliot indicated that he did not know what Martin was talking about because "the Archbishop's knowledge exceeds mine"!

However an article by John Cooney in the Irish Independent on 20 June 2009 may point to the shape of things to come. Cooney quotes Martin as acknowledging that, when he was a young seminarian in the 1960s, he knew about physical abuse in Artane and asks "Why was good guy Martin silent so long". Perhaps John Cooney who slandered Martin's great predecessor John Charles McQuaid, will decide that the current Archbishop has served his purpose as a media stooge?

In the meantime on Easter Sunday 4 April 2010, the Archbishop was confronted and heckled by former residents of institutions run by religious when he arrived to say Mass at the Pro-Cathedral. About a dozen protested outside the cathedral after having draped its railings in pairs of infants’ shoes, with black ribbons attached. John Ayers, who “was beaten every day to make me a Catholic”, told the Archbishop: “Your church is not welcome in my country any more. It is a Nazi religion. I want it to leave my country, I want you to leave my country.” In May Mr Ayres went on to hold a hunger strike outside the Archbishops house in Drumcondra and lined the road outside with children's shoes to symbolise the victims of institutional abuse.

It seems possible that the Archbishop will be devoured by the demons he released with his combination of indiscriminate apologies AND his failure to defend the innocent.

Tuesday, June 8, 2010

My website www.irishsalem.com

The following is from the Home Page of my website www.irishsalem.com

"This website is about false allegations of child abuse - mainly those directed at the Catholic Church in Ireland.
I do not dispute that there are real cases of abuse of children by clerics but my contention is that these have been used as an excuse to launch a witch-hunt. This witch-hunt has now spread to every part of our society so that every teacher, doctor, nurse, social worker etc has to take specific precautions to guard against becoming the target of a false accusation. In practise an accused person is treated as guilty until proven innocent so the allegation has a devastating effect on his career and personal life. People are routinely assaulted or their homes attacked as soon as they are accused. Relations between adults and children have broken down as no unrelated adult can afford to be seen alone with a child. (Thus a child who is being abused at home cannot speak privately to his teacher about his problems!). Although we are all now affected by this hysteria, it started in the early 1990s as an attack on the Catholic Church."