Ukraine and the Decadence of the West

 

US Soldiers at Grafenwoehr Army Base, Bavaria, Germany 

(A) Some Introductory Remarks

[1] Grafenwoehr army base, Bavaria - the largest US base outside America. Male soldiers parade in women's shoes with signs "We Are ALL hurt by Rape", "LOVE Should NOT Hurt", "Walk a Mile in Her Shoes".

This MIGHT make sense if it was a "cunning plan" by Joe Biden (AKA Baldrick) to trick Putin into (A) believing that US soldiers are decadent wimps (B) thus encouraging Putin to attack the West and be annihilated. The problem is that only (A) is likely to be valid!

[2] Tweet by Richard Moore who apparently is really the Chief of British spy agency MI6 and this is not a Parody Account!

Richard Moore @ChiefMI6 · Feb 25 With the tragedy and destruction unfolding so distressingly in Ukraine, we should remember the values and hard won freedoms that distinguish us from Putin, none more than LGBT+ rights. So let’s resume our series of tweets to mark #LGBTHM2022

[Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Trans+ History Month 2022]

[3] And of course Ireland - trying hard not to be left behind in the slide towards self-destruction: Target of 35pc female involvement in military is ‘ambitious’

The Defence Forces have described a target of 35pc overall female participation within the organisation as “ambitious”. The target was recently recommended in a report by the Commission into the Defence Forces which also cited a “masculine” culture in the military.... The Commission was established by Defence Minister Simon Coveney in late 2020 in response to concerns about the capabilities of the military and an ongoing retention crisis. [ Note (i) ]

:

[4] On the other hand we have the Catholic Bishop of Derry Donal McKeown.:

“The horrible events in Ukraine ask our western states what is it that they stand for. Amongst the threats to our society is not just a rampant Russian war in Central Europe, but the fact that liberal democracies look like little more than economic or industrial entities. Does Europe have any pretence at virtue or at generosity that goes beyond self-interest?...

" A widespread emphasis on entitlement and on victimhood generates a corrosive blame culture. It is unhealthy when we demand that something impersonal called the ‘State’ should pick up the pieces of every mess that we make. A dependency culture weakens us individually and communally. Virtue and responsibility will build hope and healing"......

"If western countries are unable to offer the world more than consumer goods and mind-numbing entertainment then we have nothing to boast of except our hollow economic power which struggles to drown out our nightmares."

[5]  Major General Jonathan Shaw former Director of Special Forces in the British Army shares the concerns of Bishop McKeown

"The West will only truly win when the Russian people reject the current regime and its ideology. My fear now, however, is that whatever happens in Ukraine, the West will lack the moral staying power to see down the threat posed by Putin....

" Meanwhile the curse of the 24-hour news cycle is that we can obsess over the dramatic and the visual at the expense of the important. This focus on what is happening on the ground distracts us from the real battle: that of values. Putin believes that the West is morally degenerate, that its support for democratic values is weak, and that its populations are more interested in their quality of life than Ukraine."

(B) The Decadence of the USA - and NATO

On January 26th 2022 the Irish Independent published an article by conservative Catholic, columnist and author Sohrab Ahmari that originally appeared in the Washington Post: Biden is Correct to Ignore War Hawks over Ukraine. I actually disagree with his conclusion regarding Ukraine but he provides a wealth of information - including (remarkably) some issues that Left and Right in the USA agree on!

"Left and right agree on very little these days, but they share a sense that something has gone profoundly wrong with America – internally. The two camps disagree over the diagnosis, whether it’s structural racism or elite liberalism that’s to blame, but the symptoms are apparent to both: the decrepit infrastructure, the loneliness that haunted young Americans long before social distancing, widespread job and health precarity, addiction and homelessness.

"Then there’s the cultural incohesion, an inability to agree on the most basic facts about US history and identity...... Biden’s [original] posture was perfectly sensible, given the political mood in Europe and especially its pivotal power, Germany. It also reflected a deeper wisdom, in continuity with his two immediate predecessors, that US power is over-stretched, exhausted and battered by domestic polarisation and decay."

Ahrami believes that the "war hawks" are asking the US President to be more zealous for European security than are Europeans themselves. He states that a majority of Europeans are ambivalent, at best, when it comes to America, Nato and the Russian threat.

"A 2020 Pew Research Centre survey of populations in 16 key Nato states found a majority opposes using force to defend a fellow member state in a conflict with Russia.

"In France, 53pc oppose fulfilling the Western Alliance’s Article 5 obligations under such a scenario, compared with 41pc who would back military action. More startling still, 60pc of Germans oppose using force to defend a fellow member state. [!] Ukraine isn’t even a Nato member.".

Ahrami believes Western Europe’s has no real commitment to Ukraine’s territorial integrity and points to our lackadaisical response to Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea and "stealth invasion" of the eastern Donbas region of Ukraine:

At various points since, Paris and Berlin resisted economic sanctions against Moscow, on occasion even calling for existing sanctions to be lifted. Meanwhile, Germany has remained determined to push ahead with Nord Stream 2, a natural gas pipeline running from Russia to Germany under the Baltic Sea, thus bypassing Ukraine and Poland and tightening Moscow’s energy stranglehold on the continent. 

Successive US administrations of both parties begged for a rethink, to no avail, until Biden dropped the issue last year. Lately, Berlin has signaled it might abandon the project if Russia invades Ukraine – maybe!

Sohrab Ahrami believes it's crazy for the USA to try to police Europe’s borders when Europeans have been this indifferent, this long. I disagree with his conclusion while recognising that the premises of his argument are largely correct!

On similar lines Ian O'Doherty writes in "The Divided States of America – Now a Country Ripping Itself Apart in Self-Loathing"

On the foreign fields, the shambolic and shameful abandonment of Afghanistan will go down in the history books as one of the most craven acts by any US leader. It also rang the dinner bell for Vladimir Putin’s Ukrainian invasion. After all, when news emerged that Mr Putin had watched the live footage of the evacuation and laughed throughout, the die was cast. He already had the idea of invading Ukraine, but the American performance in Afghanistan told him that now was the time to make that idea a reality. [ Note (ii) ]

 (C) The Decadence of Germany

[ 60pc of Germans oppose using force to defend a fellow NATO member state!]

On 29 January Ambrose Evans-Pritchard the international business editor of the Daily Telegraph wrote Markets Remain Calm despite Talk of Imminent War yet Putin knows he has a Narrow Window and a Strong Hand

It is now or never for Mr Putin. The stars are unusually well-aligned for the overthrow of the post-Cold War settlement....

The Kremlin enjoys the same partial advantage on the politico-military front. European Nato disarmed through the austerity years and is now near rock-bottom, while Russia has been re-arming for a decade. The White House is perceived to be a pushover after waving its objections to the Nord Stream 2 pipeline in a shabby deal with Germany....

Mr Putin does not have to worry about serious economic retaliation. Germany has effectively vetoed use of the financial “nuclear option”, which would to expel Russia from the SWIFT system of international payments. Berlin’s argument is that such sanctions have asymmetric blowback. The US has little direct exposure and would suffer modest loss. German and European companies with large interests in Russia would take the brunt... “I don’t see anything on the economic front that would seriously frighten Putin,” said Ian Bond, former ambassador and British security planner now at the Centre for European Reform......

Energy dependence has turned core Europe into an accomplice by default.... Top figures in the German Social Democratic Party are not even willing to take Nord Stream 2 off the table if Mr Putin annihilates Ukraine. Defence minister Christine Lambrecht said there is “no connection” between the two issues. Chancellor Olaf Scholz has belatedly agreed to demands from Washington and his Green coalition partners that there should be some linkage but the commitment is too vague and half-hearted to have much deterrent value. He still insists that the pipeline is a purely “commercial” matter. Germany has not only refused to sell vital weapons to Ukraine but is actively preventing its Nato allies from doing so.

Regarding this point British journalist (and Berlin resident) Justin Huggler described an encounter between the mayor of Kiev Vitali Klitschko and German foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock at a Security Conference meeting in Munich (!)

"We need defensive weapons. We face one of the strongest armies in the world. We are ready to fight, to defend our families,” Mr Klitschko told Ms Baerbock. “Thank you for the 5,000 helmets,” he went on, referring to a shipment of helmets Germany sent instead of weapons. “But we can’t defend our state with them, it’s not enough.”

The emotional outburst laid bare divisions that remain within the Western alliance. Germany claims it has a longstanding policy of not sending arms to conflict zones because of its Nazi past. [ Note (iii) ]

 See also Reuters article dated 21 January Germany blocks Estonia from Exporting German-origin Weapons to Ukraine 

Germany is blocking NATO ally Estonia from giving military support to Ukraine by refusing to issue permits for German-origin weapons to be exported to Kyiv as it braces for a potential Russian invasion, the Wall Street Journal reported on Friday...[The USA and] Many other NATO allies, including Britain and Poland, also agreed to export weapons directly to Ukraine, but the German government declined to do so.

“Germany has not supported the export of lethal weapons in recent years,” German Chancellor Olaf Scholz told a news conference on Friday. In the case of Estonia, Berlin is refusing to allow a third country to send artillery to Ukraine because the weaponry originated in Germany, the Journal cited Estonian and German officials as saying. 

Germany has had a belated change of heart as described by Telegraph journalists in

Germany to Ramp up Military Spend in Major €100bn Defence Policy Shift but

Since the end of the Cold War, Germany has reduced its troop strength from 500,000 to about 200,000 today. On the day Mr Putin ordered his troops into Ukraine, Alfons Mais, the chief of the German land army, admitted that the Bundeswehr was in a desperate state and was “more or less bare”. “The options we can offer to politicians to support [Nato] are extremely limited,” he wrote on LinkedIn.

(D) Conclusions 

60 per cent of Germans oppose using force to defend a fellow NATO member state! How many would refuse to defend their own country and collaborate with any enemy for a peaceful life? [ Note (iv) ]

At a Conference in Munich (!) Germany claimed it has a longstanding policy of not sending arms to conflict zones because of its Nazi past. For the same reason it banned Estonia from sending German-manufactured weapons to the Ukraine to help it defend itself. Germany has a degraded and perverse attitude to its Nazi past - more akin to Self-Hatred than Repentance. (Catholic confessors used to be good at distinguishing between the two.) One example is the case of the 93 year old "Nazi Grandma" Ursula Haverbeck convicted several times for the crime of Holocaust Denial, released from prison at the end of 2020, quickly charged again and due to face a new trial about now. The German authorities have been pursuing her since 2004 as their armed forces decayed, they made themselves dependent on Russian energy supplies and resolved not to assist a non-NATO member attacked by Russia - because of Germany's Nazi past! This is the kind of Weimar Decadence that helped Hitler to power in the first place and is now empowering Putin! [ Note (v) ]

BUT Germany has reversed course, has agreed to major sanctions against Russia and is sending arms to Ukraine and beefing up its military forces - so all is now OK! Forgive my cynicism but I agree wioth the Telegraph's Jeremy Warner that West Totally Unready for Sacrifices Needed to Really Hurt Putin

Are western electorates even remotely prepared for the economic deprivations this latter course of action – a war with Russia in all but name – is likely to entail? The already near hysterical political reaction to the cost of living squeeze suggests strongly they are not. Without wishing to trivialise today’s hardships, they are as nothing compared with what would come. “Welcome to the brave new world where Europeans are very soon going to pay €2,000 for 1,000 cubic metres of natural gas,” said Putin’s sidekick, Dmitry Medvedev, rubbing it in over Europe’s unfortunate dependence on Russian gas.

We have grown so complacent and lazy on the fruits of globalisation that the idea of anything more than a temporary interruption in the onward march of economic progress is so far beyond any recent experience as to be thought almost impossible.....So forgive my scepticism when the West promises to put up a meaningful fight against Putin’s power play. Even ignoring the threat of nuclear annihilation, the price of defiance will be high. It is not clear that mollycoddled western voters have the stomach for it. By all means, Europe must scramble to wean itself off dependence on Russian gas, but exactly the same thing was said in 2014 after Crimea. Small wonder Putin thinks he can get away with it.

"Mollycoddled western voters" indeed. Long before the Welfare State was even thought of, the main functions of the State were supposed to be defense against external aggression and maintenance of internal order. In part A above, I quote Bishop Donal McKeown regarding our "dependency culture", "emphasis on entitlement and on victimhood" and "demand that something impersonal called the ‘State’ should pick up the pieces of every mess that we make". These attitudes are now rotting the foundations of the State especially in Germany where the chief of the German land army, admitted that the Bundeswehr was in a desperate state, was “more or less bare” and unable to contribute to NATO's response to Putin.

If this crisis continues and impacts seriously on the State's ability to supply voters with goodies, I predict that our sympathy with the people of the Ukraine and refugees will evaporate with extreme speed. Western voters will start denouncing President Volodymyr Zelensky for 'intransigence' and demand he conclude a "peace at any price" with Russia!

NOTES

(i) I recall reading about an Irish guy who joined the British army during the Second World War and became one of its highest decorated veterans. After the war he left the army and led a troubled unhappy life until dying in a car crash about 1950 - a time when there were few cars on Irish roads. A country needs people like that in times of War (although they can be trouble in peacetime). Our current Defence Minister and his "Commission" are doing their best to alienate such men and ensure they will never join the army. "Masculine Culture" indeed!

(ii) It's likely that Putin's advisers showed him the photo at the head of this article. If so he undoubtedly laughed a lot!

(iii) Another nice illustration of the link between Barbarism on one side and Decadence on the other! And it also happened at a Conference in Munich!

(iv) For Irish equivalent see "Archbishop Diarmuid Martin, the Simpsons and Our Insect Overlords"

(v) Another example of the corruption of Germany's attempts to face up to its Nazi past dates from 1970 when the Red Army Faction (or 'Baeder Meinhoff Gang') started a terrorist campaign that lasted until 1998. As per Wikipedia "the group was motivated by leftist political concerns and the perceived failure of their parents' generation to confront Germany's Nazi past, and received support from Stasi and other Eastern Bloc security services." (On meetings with KGB in Dresden the group was also met by Vladimir Putin, then KGB resident in East Germany!) In 1977 Jillian Becker published "Hitler's Children: The Story of the Baader-Meinhof Terrorist Gang" a study of the 'first generation' of the RAF that pointed out that the terrorists were more akin to Nazi Stormtroopers than to the forces of the German Federal Republic that opposed them. In addition German journalist Stefan Aust wrote in 1985 "The Baader-Meinhof Gang drew a measure of support that violent leftists in the United States, like the Weather Underground, never enjoyed. A poll at the time showed that a quarter of West Germans under forty felt sympathy for the gang and one-tenth said they would hide a gang member from the police. Prominent intellectuals spoke up for the gang's righteousness (as) Germany even into the 1970s was still a guilt-ridden society." As per Wikipedia: "Horst Mahler, a founding RAF member, is now a vocal Neo-Nazi and Holocaust denier. In 2005, he was sentenced to six years in prison for incitement to racial hatred against Jews. He is on record as saying that his beliefs have not changed: Der Feind ist der Gleiche (The enemy is the same)."

Richard Dawkins ("Catholicism is Worse than Child Abuse") - Cancelled by American Humanists and Trinity Students!

 

Richard Dawkins and Trinity College Students' Union

(A) Introduction

In 1996, the American Humanist Association gave Dawkins their Humanist of the Year Award. In 2021, they voted to withdraw it, stating he "demean[ed] marginalized groups", including transgender people, using "the guise of scientific discourse". In September 2020 The Hist - or the College Historical Society of Trinity College Dublin - rescinded their invitation to Dawkins to address the society in 2021 citing his stance on the religion of Islam and sexual assault as reasoning for their cancellation. Bríd O’Donnell, auditor of The Hist explained She added the society “will not be moving ahead with his address as we value our members comfort above all else”. 

I will write more about these two organisations. [The Hist was established in Trinity College in 1770, inspired by the club formed by Edmund Burke during his  time in Trinity in 1747. It is the oldest surviving undergraduate student society in the world.] For now, suffice it to say that neither of them saw anything immoral about Dawkins' grotesque attacks on the Catholic Church - even though some of his own followers are embarrassed by them! American Humanists and Trinity students are prepared to tolerate any vicious or lying attack on the Catholic Church because they themselves hate it. Their attitude is similar to that of some Weimar intellectuals in the 1920s and 30s who were so caught up in hatred of the Churches, Capitalists, Army etc that they failed to understand that the Nazis were the real danger! (See Notes [1] and [2] )

[The following is an edited version of the article on Richard Dawkins on my old website (not Blog)  www.IrishSalem.com ]

(B) Richard Dawkins: "Catholicism is Worse than Child Abuse"

In October 2002, there was an article in " The Dubliner" magazine entitled, "The God Shaped Hole" reporting on Richard Dawkins conversation with editor Emily Hourican. In the course of the conversation, Dawkins compares Catholicism to the sexual molestation of children, and argues that Catholicism is worse:

"Regarding the accusations of sexual abuse of children by Catholic priests, deplorable and disgusting as those abuses are, they are not so harmful to the children as the grievous mental harm in bringing up the child Catholic in the first place."

As is clear from the full article, the above is not taken out of context but is an accurate representation of Dawkins' attitude to Catholics.

Article in "The Dubliner" and Reply re "Catholicism is Worse than Child Abuse"

Dawkins stated that:

"....The Roman Catholic Church is one of the forces for evil in the world, mainly because of the powerful influence it has over the minds of children. The Catholic Church has developed, over the centuries, brilliant techniques in brain washing children; even intelligent people who have had a proper, full cradle-Catholic upbringing find it hard to shake it off when they reach adulthood. Obviously many of them do - and congratulations to them for it - but even some really quite intelligent people fail to shake it off, powerful evidence of the skill in brainwashing that the Catholic Church exercises. It's far more skilled than, for instance, the Anglican Church, mere amateurs in the game.

"The Catholic Church also has an extraordinarily retrogressive stance on everything to do with reproduction. Any sort of new technology which makes life easier for women without causing any suffering is likely to be opposed by the Catholic Church. Regarding the accusations of sexual abuse of children by Catholic priests, deplorable and disgusting as those abuses are, they are not so harmful to the children as the grievous mental harm in bringing up the child Catholic in the first place.

" I had a letter from a woman in America in her forties, who said that when she was a child of about seven, brought up a Catholic, two things happened to her: one was that she was sexually abused by her parish priest. The second thing was that a great friend of hers at school died, and she had nightmares because she thought her friend was going to hell because she wasn't Catholic. For her there was no question that the greatest child abuse of those two was the abuse of being taught about hell. Being fondled by the priest was negligible in comparison. And I think that's a fairly common experience.

 "I can't speak about the really grave sexual abuse that obviously happens sometimes, which actually causes violent physical pain to the altar boy or whoever it is, but I suspect that most of the sexual abuse priests are accused of is comparatively mild - a little bit of fondling perhaps, and a young child might scarcely notice that. The damage, if there is damage, is going to be mental damage anyway, not physical damage. Being taught about hell - being taught that if you sin you will go to everlasting damnation, and really believing that - is going to be a harder piece of child abuse than the comparatively mild sexual abuse. .......

 A critic of Dawkins,  Mike Gene replied:

I think it clear that this is raw anti-religious bigotry. We can ignore the letter from "a woman in America" as a) we have no idea whether her account is valid and b) even if valid, it is an anecdote. Since Dawkins is a drum-banger for science, surely he would recognize science would need much more than a vague anecdote to support this contention.

So let's think through on Dawkins' logic. First, where is the science? What scientific evidence does Dawkins offer to support the contention that believing in Hell is a worse form of abuse than being sexually molested? Where is the evidence of this "grievous mental harm" in bringing up the child Catholic? His biased opinion? His emotional approach? An anecdote?

Secondly, it is ironic that Dawkins has the science backwards. There are plenty of studies to show that sexual molestation of a child can have long term, negative effects. Dismissing it as "a bit of fondling" and being "mental damage anyway" is insulting to the many victims of child molestation. And there are plenty of studies that also show that religious belief and convictions, if held seriously, provide a net positive benefit in terms of psychological and physical health. In other words, contrary to the views of Dawkins, being raised a Catholic is not worse than being sexually abused.

But let's follow through with this example of Dawkins Think. As it stands, it is illegal to sexually molest a child. And, of course, it is not illegal to raise your child as a Catholic. But if it is really more harmful to raise your child as a Catholic than to sexually molest your child, as Dawkins believes, society needs to adjust its laws. According to Dawkins' logic, we should a) either make it illegal to raise your child as a Catholic, as it is worse than pedophilia, or b) legalize pedophilia, since it is not as bad as the legal activity of teaching a child about Hell and Catholicism. Which option would Dawkins choose? It's his logic, thus his choice to clarify.

Consider a simple analogy. The house next to your house goes up for sale. Two families are interested in buy it. The first family is a devout Catholic family. The father is hard working and has broken no laws. But he has taught his kids to believe in Catholic doctrine, including belief in Hell. The second family is not religious. The father is also hard working, but he also sexually molests his kids. In Dawkins World, you hope the child molester moves in next door, as he is not as bad as the Catholic man."

 (C) It Should be Illegal for Parents to Indoctrinate Their Children - Petition Signed by Dawkins

In December 2006, Dawkins signed a Petition that upset some of his most devoted followers - so much so that he quickly withdrew his signature and claimed he had "misunderstood" same. In contrast he has never withdrawn his claim that Catholicism is worse than child abuse. While the latter claim worries some of his followers, it is directly entirely at the Catholic Church and therefore a lot more palatable to anti-clerics).

Martin Wagner of "The Atheist Experience" Blog *** wrote in an article called "Has Dawkins Totally Jumped the Shark":

"The petition, authored by one Jamie Wallis using a service on the No 10 Downing Street website that allows users to write their own petitions and gather signatures right there for the PM's consideration, reads as follows:

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Make it illegal to indoctrinate or define children by religion before the age of 16. In order to encourage free thinking, children should not be subjected to any regular religious teaching or be allowed to be defined as belonging to a particular religious group based on the views of their parents or guardians. At the age of 16, as with other laws, they would then be considered old enough and educated enough to form their own opinion and follow any particular religion (or none at all) through free thought.

"Whoa.

"Let's run through this.

"The first and most obvious thing that comes to mind is that what the petition asks is something that in America is unequivocally unconstitutional: government intrusion in private religious practice. Ed Brayton, over at Dispatches from the Culture Wars, has gone into outrage overload at this whole thing, declaring that "as far as I'm concerned, this pretty much removes Dawkins from any discussion among reasonable people." He goes on to a laundry list of entirely valid criticisms.

This proposal is every bit as noxious and totalitarian as a proposal from Christian reconstructionists that those who teach their children about witchcraft or atheism should be thrown in jail would be. Just imagine what you would have to do to actually enforce such a law. No one could take their children to church, which means you'd have to literally police the churches to make sure no children went in. Nor could they teach their children about religion at home, read the Bible with them, say prayers with them before they go to bed. The only way to enforce such a law would be to create a society that would make Orwell's 1984 seem optimistic by comparison.

"In case the "thrown in jail" part sounds a little hyperbolic to you, recall that the petition itself uses the word "illegal," and the general idea is that if someone does something illegal, then they've earned at the very least a citation and at worst imprisonment. Does Dawkins really want people to go to jail for taking their kids to Sunday School? Has he really gone that far over the top?" [End of Quotation from Martin Wagner]

*** The Blog motto seems to be "We feed on the blood of the ignorant!" - but they may not be referring to Dawkins!

My Comment: Dawkins withdrew his signature, claiming that he had misunderstood the Petition, believing it only referred to religious schools. The Petition does not mention schools at all and moreover is perfectly in line with Dawkins claim that raising your child as a Catholic is a form of child abuse.

(D) Hitler was not an Atheist; He was a Catholic - as per Richard Dawkins

On 22 September 2010 the UK Guardian reported that "Richard Dawkins has contacted the Guardian to strongly deny that he compared Roman Catholics to Nazis, rather he said that Hitler was a Roman Catholic." The Guardian then gave a detailed account of his speech that included the following:

"The unfortunate little fact that Ratzinger was in the Hitler Youth has been the subject of a widely observed moratorium. I've respected it myself, hitherto. But after the pope's outrageous speech in Edinburgh, blaming atheism for Adolf Hitler, one can't help feeling the gloves are off ..

"Hitler was a Roman Catholic. Or at least he was as much a Roman Catholic as the 5 million so-called Roman Catholics in this country today. For Hitler never renounced his baptismal Catholicism, which was doubtless the criterion for counting the 5 million alleged British Catholics today. You cannot have it both ways. Either you have 5 million British Catholics, in which case you have to have Hitler, too. Or Hitler was not a Catholic, in which case you have to give us an honest figure for the number of genuine Catholics in Britain today – the number who really believe Jesus turns himself into a wafer, as the former Professor Ratzinger presumably does.

"In any case, Hitler certainly was not an atheist. In 1933 he claimed to have "stamped atheism out", having banned most of Germany's atheist organisations, including the German Freethinkers League whose building was then turned into an information bureau for church affairs. ...

"Even if Hitler had been an atheist – as Joseph Stalin more surely was – how dare Ratzinger suggest that atheism has any connection whatsoever with their horrific deeds? Any more than Hitler and Stalin's non-belief in leprechauns or unicorns. Any more than their sporting of a moustache – along with Francisco Franco and Saddam Hussein. There is no logical pathway from atheism to wickedness.

"Unless, that is, you are steeped in the vile obscenity at the heart of Catholic theology. I refer (and I am indebted to Paula Kirby for the point) to the doctrine of original sin. These people believe – and they teach this to tiny children, at the same time as they teach them the terrifying falsehood of hell – that every baby is "born in sin". That would be Adam's sin, by the way: Adam who, as they themselves now admit, never existed.

"Original sin means that, from the moment we are born, we are wicked, corrupt, damned. Unless we believe in their God. Or unless we fall for the carrot of heaven and the stick of hell. That, ladies and gentleman, is the disgusting theory that leads them to presume that it was godlessness that made Hitler and Stalin the monsters that they were. We are all monsters unless redeemed by Jesus. What a vile, depraved, inhuman theory to base your life on. 

"Ratzinger is an enemy of humanity. ..........."

 (E) Extracts from "Hitler's Secret Conversations" (aka "Hitler's Table Talk") regarding Christianity

The book Hitler's Secret Conversations 1941-1944 published by Farrar, Straus and Young, Inc. first edition, 1953, contains definitive proof of Hitler's real views. The book was published in Britain under the title, "Hitler's Table Talk 1941-1944", which title was used for the Oxford University Press paperback edition in the United States.

All of these are quotes from Adolf Hitler:

Night of 11th-12th July, 1941:
National Socialism and religion cannot exist together.... The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity.... Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things. (p 6 & 7)

10th October, 1941, midday:
Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure. (p 43)

14th October, 1941, midday:
The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.... Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity.... And that's why someday its structure will collapse.... ...the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little.... Christianity the liar.... We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State. (p 49-52)

19th October, 1941, night:
The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity.

21st October, 1941, midday:
Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism, the destroyer.... The decisive falsification of Jesus' doctrine was the work of St.Paul. He gave himself to this work... for the purposes of personal exploitation.... Didn't the world see, carried on right into the Middle Ages, the same old system of martyrs, tortures, faggots? Of old, it was in the name of Christianity. Today, it's in the name of Bolshevism. Yesterday the instigator was Saul: the instigator today, Mardochai. Saul was changed into St.Paul, and Mardochai into Karl Marx. By exterminating this pest, we shall do humanity a service of which our soldiers can have no idea. (p 63-65)

13th December, 1941, midnight:
Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery.... .... When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let's be the only people who are immunised against the disease. (p 118 & 119)

14th December, 1941, midday:
Kerrl, with noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don't believe the thing's possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself.... Pure Christianity-- the Christianity of the catacombs-- is concerned with translating Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics. (p 119 & 120)

9th April, 1942, dinner:
There is something very unhealthy about Christianity (p 339)

27th February, 1942, midday:
It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors-- but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie. Our epoch Uin the next 200 years will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold ." (p 278)

(F) MY CONCLUSION

Hitler was in fact, a Social Darwinist who believed in an impersonal Providence which gives victory to the strong by using a process of natural selection to ensure the survival of the fittest. (He objected to Christianity because he saw it as "a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature ..... the systematic cultivation of the human failure".) In addition Hitler - like Dawkins - did not believe in Original Sin - which the Catholic Church regards as a radical weakness in human nature by means of which we have a "natural" tendency to do evil rather than good.

NOTES:

[1] As per Wikipedia "The College Historical Society (CHS) – popularly referred to as The Hist – is one of the two debating societies at Trinity College Dublin. It was established within the college in 1770 and was inspired by the club formed by the philosopher Edmund Burke during his own time in Trinity in 1747. It is the oldest surviving undergraduate student society in the world. .... Prominent members have included many Irish men and women of note, from the republican revolutionary Theobald Wolfe Tone and the author Bram Stoker, to founding father of the Northern Irish state Edward Carson and first President of Ireland Douglas Hyde, and – in more recent times – Government Ministers Mary Harney (who was the first female auditor of the society) and Brian Lenihan."

Theobald Wolfe Tone, later leader of the United Irishmen rebellion in 1798, was elected auditor in 1785, and future rebel Thomas Addis Emmet was a member of the committee. The society was briefly expelled from the college in 1794, but readmitted on the condition that "No question of modern politics shall be debated". Eight members of The Hist were expelled in 1798 in the run-up to the Rebellion, and a motion was later carried condemning the rebellion, against their former auditor.

Tension between the society and the college flourished in the early nineteenth century, with the auditor being called before the provost in 1810. After a number of members were removed at the request of the college board, the society left the college in 1815. The society continued from 1815 as the Extern Historical Society until 1843, when it reformed within the college again on the condition that no subject of current politics was debated. As per Wikipedia "This provision remains in the Laws of the Hist as a nod to the past, but the college authorities have long since ceased to restrict the subjects of the society's debates." 

The decadence of the oldest surviving undergraduate student society in the world ("we value our members comfort above all else”) is therefore significant and illustrates the truth of the old saying that "A fish rots from the head down"!

[2] The Guardian has a very informative article dated 20 April 2021 on the issue "Richard Dawkins Loses ‘Humanist of the Year’ Title over Trans Comments" The subtitle is "American Humanist Association criticises academic for comments about identity using ‘the guise of scientific discourse’, and withdraws its 1996 honour" 

Like The Hist, the American Humanist Association had no problem with Dawkins' view that raising one's child  as a Catholic is worse than child sex abuse. So exactly WHAT did the AHA object to? 

 On Monday, it announced that it was withdrawing the award, referring to a tweet sent by Dawkins earlier this month, in which he compared trans people to Rachel Dolezal, the civil rights activist who posed as a black woman for years.

“In 2015, Rachel Dolezal, a white chapter president of NAACP, was vilified for identifying as Black,” wrote Dawkins on Twitter. “Some men choose to identify as women, and some women choose to identify as men. You will be vilified if you deny that they literally are what they identify as. Discuss.”

The Guardian article goes on to give details of a statement from the AHA board:

The AHA said that Dawkins had “over the past several years accumulated a history of making statements that use the guise of scientific discourse to demean marginalised groups, an approach antithetical to humanist values”. The evolutionary biologist’s latest comment, the board said, “implies that the identities of transgender individuals are fraudulent, while also simultaneously attacking Black identity as one that can be assumed when convenient”, while his “subsequent attempts at clarification are inadequate and convey neither sensitivity nor sincerity”.

“Consequently, the AHA Board has concluded that Richard Dawkins is no longer deserving of being honored by the AHA, and has voted to withdraw, effective immediately, the 1996 Humanist of the Year award.”

The claim that Dawkins had "accumulated a history of making statements that .. demean marginalised groups" presumably includes his 2015 remark that: “Is trans woman a woman? Purely semantic. If you define by chromosomes, no. If by self-identification, yes. I call her “she” out of courtesy.”

[3] The Hist and the American Humanist Association are not the ONLY secular organisations to take offence at Dawkins' tweet. The afore-mentioned Guardian article also quotes Alison Gill, vice president for legal and policy at American Atheists (founded by Madalyn Murray O'Hair) and a trans woman. According to The Guardian "she said Dawkins’ comments reinforce dangerous and harmful narratives". She said: “Given the repercussions for the millions of trans people in this country, in this one life we have to live, as an atheist and as a trans woman, I hope that Professor Dawkins treats this issue with greater understanding and respect in the future.”

Archbishop Diarmuid Martin, the Simpsons and Our Insect Overlords

 

Archbishop of Dublin Diarmuid Martin

Archbishop Diarmuid AKA Kent Brockman welcoming our Insect Overlords

(A) Former Catholic Ireland and our New Secular (Insect) Overlords

Ladies and Gentlemen .....The Corvair spacecraft has apparently been taken over, 'conquered' if you will, by a master race of giant space ants. It's difficult to tell from this vantage point whether they will consume the captive Earthmen or merely enslave them. One thing is for certain: there is no stopping them; the ants will soon be here. And I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords. I'd like to remind them as a trusted TV personality, I can be helpful in rounding up others to toil in their underground sugar caves.

And from the other side - Adolf Hitler: "The final state must be: in St Peter's Chair, a senile officiant; facing him, a few sinister old women, as gaga and poor in spirit as anyone could wish. The young and healthy are on our side". 

I have a previous article on this Blog The Decadence of the Sisters of Mercy describing nuns whose current mental and moral status isn't far removed from that described by Hitler. I have an article on Archbishop Diarmuid Martin on my old website IrishSalem.com Unfortunately his antics cannot be explained or excused by Senility!

This current article is, in part, a response to one by the Religious Affairs correspondent of the Irish Times Patsy McGarry on the Archbishop's forthcoming retirement  - "Diarmuid Martin’s Successor Must be Cut From the Same Cloth" (subtitle "Fears Rome will impose an archbishop more interested in protecting its own interests") What our secular elite (or Insect Overlords) require is a prelate with minimal concern for the rights of falsely accused priests like Fr Kevin Reynolds or laity like John Waters BOTH libelled by State broadcaster RTE - as child abuser and homophobe respectively. Or indeed for the rights of a family - including four children - driven out of their home on 4 occasions by mobs. I write about the latter case in Section (E) below 
.

(B) Archbishop Diarmuid and I

I have had a few run ins with Archbishop Diarmuid over the years. More than a decade ago when I was still (relatively) young and innocent, I sent him two emails regarding false allegations of child abuse against Catholic clergy. I can't locate them just now but they would have been an early version of my article Eight Falsely Accused Bishops (and Archbishops) in Ireland No reply - not even an acknowledgement . A few weeks later I attended the Easter ceremonies in the Pro-Cathedral in Dublin which was my usual annual habit at the time (I have since changed it) and ran into his secretary there. I mentioned it to him and he suggested that I put the emails in writing and send them by post. I did so and again - of course - there was no reply. Some time later I spoke about this episode during a public meeting and said I assumed it was because the Archbishop is a "Liberal" and doesn't communicate with Reactionaries like myself. A very liberal priest there assured me that he had the same problem getting a response and that our Archbishop only communicates with VIPs! (Note [1] and [2] )

I describe my most recent run-in with the Archbishop in my article "Archbishop Diarmuid Martin and Cancellation of Seminar on Tuam Children’s Home" The health authorities had approved our History Seminar - to be held in Newman University Church, Dublin on 30 August 2020 with maximum attendance of 50 - as complying with Covid Regulations. However the Archbishop insisted that the event be cancelled. We had to relocate to Galway on 4 October. See "Seminar on Tuam Children's Home (Online) - Transferred to Galway" 

My article Irish "Antifa" Attacks Protesters - "Liberal" Irish Media Don't Mind includes a description of an indirect run in with the Archbishop - see section on "The Decadence of Archbishop Diarmuid". I have been at three demonstrations (in favour of Free Speech and opposing the Covid lockdown regulations) at which we were violently attacked by Antifa types - and I barely missed a fourth one which turned out to be the most violent. The Archbishop appears to have said nothing about the attackers but he condemns those of us who were targeted by the thugs. Weimar style decadence!

(C) The Archbishop and Miss Panti Bliss

In February 2014 Irish State broadcaster RTE agreed to pay libel damages to six members of the Iona Institute (for Religion and Society) after a TV broadcast on the Saturday Night Show in which drag queen Rory O'Neill - alias Miss Panti Bliss - described them as Homophobes. It was not a spontaneous act - he was invited by RTE presenter Brendan O'Connor to name names! Irish Times columnist Breda O’Brien told the Irish Times that she and other members of the Iona Institute only sought libel damages after RTÉ refused to apologise over the claim of homophobia.

Ms O’Brien said she was not “remotely interested in money”, but agreed to accept damages because “people don’t take you seriously unless there is some sort of settlement. The key issue here is that RTÉ walked itself into a defamation case and then offered a completely inadequate response which is a right of reply”. She maintained that Saturday Night Show presenter Brendan O’Connor should never have asked Mr O’Neill to name names. “All we wanted was an apology and was offered a completely inadequate response which was a right of reply. It is not up to you to defend yourself. It is up to the organisation that defamed you."

The six Iona members - including another Irish Times journalist John Waters - accepted a modest total amount of €85,000 but there were furious objections in the Irish Parliament and media to any payment. It was necessary for RTÉ’s head of television Glen Killane to explain that the €85,000 payout  saved the broadcaster “an absolute multiple” in the long term. Mr Killane said it would have been “absolutely reckless” of RTÉ not to settle the case. He told RTÉ Radio’s News at One programme the broadcaster was faced with six different defamation actions and was told by “very senior counsel” that it was unlikely it would be able to defend any defamation action in court.

So how did the Catholic Archbishop of Dublin react to the libelling by our national broadcaster of what  Wikipedia describes as "a socially conservative Roman Catholic advocacy group"? Well naturally he had no objection! According to a report in The National Post (Canada) 

The Catholic Church’s senior official in Dublin, Archbishop Diarmuid Martin, conceded that the church did harbour people with hostile and un-Christian attitudes toward gays. “Anybody who doesn’t show love towards gay and lesbian people is insulting God,” Martin said. “They are not just homophobic if they do that. They are actually God-ophobic, because God loves every one of those people.”

O’Neill, as is his style, had a quip to capture the absurdity of his situation. “I love the fact that the archbishop has essentially come out for Team Panti,” he told the AP.

 

(D) The Archbishop and the Sisters of Mercy

"..a senile officiant; facing him, a few sinister old women, as gaga and poor in spirit as anyone could wish..."  Adolf Hitler predicts future of Catholic Church

A few years ago I was told an extra-ordinary story about the Sisters of Mercy and Archbishop Diarmuid. Apparently the Sisters were deeply shocked when the Archbishop threw them to the wolves in the aftermath of the publication of the Ryan Report on industrial schools in May 2009. So the nuns who cheerfully betrayed their own innocent colleagues in a desperate attempt  to make themselves popular with "victims", were surprised when the Archbishop did the same to them. Obviously there's no honour among thieves!

I have an article on the Sisters of Mercy in my old website (not Blog) IrishSalem.com This story may be related to the following extract from that article:

Finally and In Conclusion
Bishop Willie Walsh was quoted by Patsy McGarry in the Irish Times on 14 November 2009:

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”.

So that explains nearly a decade and a half of self-degradation by the Sisters of Mercy - and other female religious. It was the Bishops that made them do it! 

 

(E) Is Archbishop Diarmuid Martin a Saviour of the Irish Church? (Politics.ie discussion)

The following is an extract from a discussion on Politics.ie mainly in 2011-12 on the topic "Archbishop Martin - a Saviour of the Church"

Corelli Dec 18 2011: He is liked and disliked in equal measure in Rome, one hears. Liked because he is the only bishop who has handled the clerical abuse issue properly. Disliked because, for the Roman church, he is an extreme liberal, which to most mortals, would make him a mild conservative.

Kilbarry [Myself] Dec 19 2011:  I have a long article on the Archbishop on my website and part of it refers to a discussion on Politics.ie over a year ago [i.e. in 2010].

Archbishop Diarmuid Martin

The Archbishop and Mob Hysteria
In June/  July 2010 in Co. Wicklow, a family comprising parents and four children were driven out of their homes on four occasions by mobs. On the last occasion the mob burned down their home in Ashford. The reason for the hyteria was that 18 years previously (in 1992) the husband had been convicted of a sex offence against a minor and got a suspended sentence of six months. There was a discussion on the Politics.ie website entitled "Labour Councillors Join Mob Harassment of Innocent Family" and I wrote (among other things}:Labour Councillors Join Mob Harrassment of Innocent Family - Page 18 

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.) ......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.

MY CURRENT COMMENT [Dec 2011]: Archbishop Martin likes to run with the hares and hunt with the hounds. He has no intention of raising issues that might bother Irish "liberals" - for example why did Labour Councillors on Co Wicklow back up the actions of those mobs?

NotAnotherPolitician said: How come he could spend €94,000 on a kitchen for his palace if he is all you make him out to be?

Kilbarry [Myself] - reply to NotAnotherPolitician Dec 19 2011 The fact that he kept his mouth shut when mobs in his diocese drove a family (including 4 children) out of their home on four occasions and burnt the house the last time, is rather more important that what he spends on his kitchen.  So is the following from my article Archbishop Diarmuid Martin, 

The Archbishop and Auxiliary Bishops of Dublin 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. ....

Martin told lies about one of his own auxiliary bishops. Presumably he thought he could get away with it because after all, what could Bishop O'Mahony do about it? Well Bishop O'Mahony passed on the correspondence to the Irish Catholic and from there it got to the rest of the media. This was unprecedented in the history of the Catholic Church in Ireland. Martin's treatment of Bishop O'Mahony is one of the major reasons why the Archbishop is disliked and indeed despised by his own priests and by the rest of the hierarchy. The fact that anti-clerics love him goes without saying!

borntorum: The fact that you dislike him only raises my opinion of the man

Kilbarry-reply to borntorum Dec 20 2011: In general do you approve of telling lies - or is it only when a "liberal" slanders a "reactionary"? 

On a related issue do you think the Archbishop - as a self-proclaimed defender of abused children - should have condemned the Wicklow mobs last year especially the mob that burned children out of their home? 

The Herren said: There is no doubting this man's ability or compassion. Pity he wasting so much of these qualities preaching and practicing mumbo jumbo.

Kilbarry -reply to The Herren Dec 20 2011: I will repeat the second part of a previous post:..."On a related issue do you think the Archbishop - as a self-proclaimed defender of abused children - should have condemned the Wicklow mobs last year especially the mob that burned children out of their home?

The mobs were attacking the home and family of a man who had got a suspended sentence in 1992 for the indecent assault of a minor. The man had four children who were driven out of 4 successive houses by thugs who claimed (like the Archbishop) to be acting in defence of children. These were not the kind of children that our beloved Archbishop wanted to be seen defending. He is interested only in Politically Correct causes and these were NOT PC children!

Kilbarry Feb 27 2012:  The following letter appeared in the Irish Times today. In fact there IS a connection between the Archbishop's unwillingness to support falsely accused priests AND his unwillingness to condemn mobs in his Archdiocese who drove a family out of their homes on four successive occasions and burned down the home the fourth time. The protection of children is not the issue here - or at any rate it's not what motives our beloved Archbishop!

The Irish Times - Readers Letters and Feedback

A fear among priests

Sir, Breda O'Brien (Opinion, February 11th), in writing about the possibility of complacency regarding child abuse, says: "There is also the very real fear among priests that things have moved so far in the opposite direction that any priest is presumed "guilty as charged". There are some bishops . . . who believe it is impossible for a priest to return to ministry even when it is clear that a priest was falsely accused."

The implications of these attitudes for the working relationship between bishop and priest are far-reaching. The promise of respect on behalf of the priest was to be honoured by the bishop with a duty of care. In the past the exaggeration of respect and honour led to a culture of clericalism but their absence now as a result of the abuse crisis has created a vacuum in which trust has been replaced by suspicion on both sides.

Gathering around the bishop as a sign of unity has lost its meaning since I, and many priests like me, on being summoned to Archbishop's House on any issue would not attend unless accompanied by a witness, if not a solicitor. Yours, etc,

Fr GREGORY O'BRIEN PP,
St Jude the Apostle,
Willington,
Templeogue,
Dublin 6W.

Warrior of Destiny Feb 27 2012: If Diarmuid Martin became Pope tomorrow he'd be the FDR of the Vatican.

Kilbarry Feb 27 2012: Does that mean you approve of his silence when a Wicklow mob burned a family - including four children - out of their home because the father had got a suspended sentence 20 years before? And what about the Labour Councillors in Wicklow who endorsed the action of the mob and voted that anyone who "associated with" a sex offender should be denied housing by the Council. They were referring to the wife and children of this man. Diarmuid Martin had no words of criticism for the mob-endorsing politicians either. That's the way FDR behaved is it?

Des Quirell : I was silent on that issue too. What does that say about me? If he is to comment on every arising issue he'll be damned as in interfering fool.

Kilbarry-Reply to Des Quirell Feb 27 2012: Martin specialises in denouncing child abuse. The four homes attacked by the mob were in his Archdiocese. There was political support for the mobsters from the Labour Party. The mobs claimed to be acting to protect children from the father of the family. This is the issue that has defined Martin's role as Archbishop - but the problem is that the victims were the wife and children of a man who had been convicted of a sex offense 20 years previously. THAT is why Martin kept his mouth shut.

LamportsEdge That's a dangerous title to have in the catholic pantheon of the magisterium ('saviour') ... Martin would want to stay away from Calvary-like hills and run like hell should he spot Shatter looking at him quare like...

Kilbarry Feb 27 2012: Martin is regarded as a liberal hero for much the same reason that the [Anglican] "Red Dean" of Canterbury the Rev Hewlett Johnson was similarly regarded half a century ago. The Rev. Johnson denounced the evils of capitalism while proclaiming the "authentic" Christian virtues of Comrade Stalin. He was secretly despised by his progressive friends who regarded him as the greatest "Useful Idiot" of them all.

After Prime Time's case against Fr Kevin Reynolds collapsed, Martin denied that the Irish media in general have any special animus against the Catholic Church. ("Mission to Prey" was just an unfortunate exception it seems.) While I cannot swear that Patsy McGarry and John Cooney see our Archbishop as the CURRENT Most Useful Idiot, I strongly suspect it.

LamportsEdge: Seeing as he has now twice been passed over for a red hat despite being hotly tipped for one I'd say that there is as much evidence for the current Opus vatican to see him as the Useful Idiot in the welter of degeneracy of the Irish church. He was a financial expert seconded to the UN in Geneva and his career was mostly around high finance rather than ideology or ministry- it is possible he was regarded as 'unsoundly liberal' some time ago by the Opus contingent and given the poisoned chalice of an Archbishopric in Ireland to keep him out of the college of cardinals.

Kilbarry - reply to LamportsEdge Feb 27 2012: I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here. My impression is that Martin is widely distrusted and despised by his own priests as a hack who will say anything to make himself popular with the media. The Vatican are certainly aware of this opinion and one solution might be to kick Martin upstairs by making him a Cardinal and giving him a role in "high finance" or whatever. The trouble is that this will be represented by the media as the Vatican going soft on child abuse by removing our journalists own fake hero (and real clown). There is no easy way out of this dilemma but I favour the "kick him upstairs" approach myself.

Corelli: There is to be about 13 more vacancies in the College of Cardinals in the next 12 months with most of the vacant Cardinatial See's having being filled at the last one. Therefore, if Martin is to get the Red Hat within the life time of this present Pope, there is about another 12 months to do it.

There are a number of factors in play. The rumor amongst the Catholic bloggers and papers, is that Martin, actually, has a very good personal relationship with the Pope, and within the Vatican, has still very good relationships within the Curia, having worked there for so long. There is a suggestion that if the Eucharistic Congress is not a disaster he might get one as reward next time. [Emphasis mine, RC] 

However, there is ONE HUGE fly in the ointment. Geography. There presently is a living and serving Irish Cardinal, namely that twit Brady, who, with the best will in the world, has not sufficient intellect, charm or influence to be still in the job. The only way Martin could get one in that situation is to get one of the Vatican which automatically gets the Red Hat. Now Martin would, I am sure, like to be back in the Vatican, but there are limited jobs going and he would not like a token appointment in the Curia which would give him title but no power and totally scupper his chances of the "big" job.

Kilbarry - reply to Corelli Feb 27 2012: I am definitely not an insider where these issues are concerned. However, between talking to my few contacts and what was published in the media, I did ascertain one important fact. The two auxiliary bishops of Dublin Eamonn Walsh and Ray Field understood that they had the support of Archbishop Martin for their initial refusal to resign after the publication of the Murphy Report in November 2009. Then suddenly to their amazement and without warning, Martin indicated in a Prime Time programme in December 09,that he did NOT support them.

So they felt that they had no alternative but to tender their resignations to Pope Benedict. However they both wrote personal letters to the Pope saying the SOLE reason for tendering their resignations was Martin's public repudiation of them! Thus Pope Benedict refused to accept their resignations.

If that is the case - and I have good reason to believe that it is - I cannot see how Martin can possibly have a good working relationship with the Pope. I suspect that the door is being left open for him to return to a high-sounding post in the Curia where he can do a lot less harm than as Archbishop of Dublin. That may account for the impression that he is in good odour with the Vatican. In other words it IS a question of kicking him upstairs as soon as it is possible to do so!

Kilbarry -continued: And the following extract from an Irish Times article dated 21 December 2009 tends to support my view. It quotes Eddie Shaw who worked in the Dublin Archdiocese Communications Office in 2002-03:

Archbishop's Response Criticised Irish Times, Dec 21, 2009 by Patsy McGarry

Eddie Shaw, .... said communications strategy by the archdiocese following publication of the Murphy report had been "catastrophic . . . absolutely catastrophic"

Speaking on RTÉ Radio 1's Marian Finucane programme yesterday, he said: "I think, Marian, it's wrong, the way it was done is wrong. Communicating with people who are your auxiliaries through the Prime Time programme in the way it was done - that was wrong.

"What's going on now this weekend in the papers, with the Archbishop in Rome saying close this matter down until I return to it again in the New Year" , he said. "I will talk specifically for the two men I worked with, Bishop Éamonn Walsh, Bishop Ray Field in particular", he continued. .......

He asked: "How much preparation do you need to prepare for something like this when you know what's coming down the track? How much preparation do you need to be informed, to be advised to have a communications strategy? Can somebody show me where the evidence is of a communications strategy that is based on a church that has a mission to its people?" .......

Asked about Archbishop Martin saying on the same Prime Time programme that since publication of the Murphy report the previous week only two bishops had called him offering support, Mr Shaw said: "I actually don't understand that comment . . . Is that a reflection on the gap that has opened up between one bishop and his brother bishops? Is that a reflection on the way some bishops thought about the way he communicated? I don't know. I can't answer that." ......

"Why not have the people in, talk to them one to one, tell them this is going to happen. Why would you communicate that for the first time, as apparently it was done, across the airwaves on Prime Time?"

Good question and the answer may be that Martin likes the sound of his own voice on TV and just decided - on the spur of the moment - to badmouth his colleagues and his auxiliary Bishops. Nothing would surprise me about that clown!

Toland Feb 28 2012: He seems to me at least a normal, decent human being. In the company he keeps that makes him look like a saint.

Kilbarry - reply to Toland Feb 28 2012: Martin told lies about his auxiliary Bishop Dermot O'Mahony and he tried to get Bishop Drennan of Galway (former auxiliary in Dublin) to resign even though NO criticism of him was made in the Murphy Report. The man is a liar and a vicious clown. (In comparison to him the "Red Dean" of Canterbury was at least innocent, although a complete fool!) See in Archbishop Diarmuid Martin 

The Archbishop and Auxiliary Bishops of Dublin
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?

 

I did a brief reprise of the subject in January 2016 when I published an article on this Blog: 

Kilbarry - Jan 16 2016

Archbishop Diarmuid - Sins of Omission re Child Sex Abuse

There is an article on Archbishop Diarmuid Martin here - based on a Politics.ie discussion in 2010. A family with 4 children had been driven out of their homes on four occasions by mobs in Co. Wicklow when the mobs discoverer that the father had a conviction for sexual contact with a minor nearly 20 years previously. (He got a 6 months suspended sentence which gives some indication of how grave the offence was.) On the FOURTH occasions the woman promised to separate from her husband so naturally the mob reacted differently this time around; they burned the house down with all the family's possessions inside! Wicklow County Council then passed a motion saying that anyone who "consorted with" a sex offender should not be housed by the Council!

So what did Archbishop Diarmuid do - this "Saviour of the Church", this champion of abused children? Why nothing at all. The 4 children of a man convicted of a sex offence almost 20 years before, merited no word of sympathy from the Archbishop.

Anyway here here is the article Labour Councillors Join Mob Harrasment of Innocent Family - CONTINUED

Karloff : Shocking story. Only thirty years ago these kinds of communities were following moving statues.

I believe (aside from issues relating to the ongoing safety of children) that once any offender serves their sentence then they have served their sentence. In times like this people rely on authority to protect them from the mob as a last line of defence, those political whores in that council are the mob themselves.

Kilbarry Jan 16 2016: Two Labour Party Councillors were responsible for the motions that denied housing to people who "consorted with" sex offenders and thereby supported the actions of the mob. However the motions were passed unanimously by Wicklow County Council in June 2010. Presumably the councilors from other parties were afraid to vote against, because public opinion was on the side of the lynch mob! However an article in the Sunday Independent on 4 July 2010 pointed out that one man DID protest:

One lonely figure stands out as the voice of reason and fairness: Michael Nicholson, the director of services with Wicklow County Council, who called what happened an example of mob mentality, and stands over that remark.

Now all praise to Michael Nicholson, but note that he was a civil servant and NOT a politician and so his job didn't depend on the mob.

However there was one other person who could have intervened with complete safety. This was Archbishop Diarmuid Martin, the cleric who is a hero to nearly all ANTI-clerics in Ireland! The Archbishop can hardly give a speech without apologising for the (real or imagined) sins of the Church against children. [And when I say "imagined" I refer to his attempt to get Bishop Drennan to resign even though NO criticism had been made of him in the Murphy report.] If any OTHER cleric had denounced the Wicklow mobs, he would have been shouted down as a defender of paedophiles but our caring and compassionate Archbishop could have done so - or, at the very least, he could have expressed sympathy for the four children of the family. Archbishop Diarmuid said nothing because he is a fraud whose only concern is to present himself as a hero in the eyes of our "liberal" journalists.

I have a gut feeling that they despise him!

Kilbarry Feb 29 2020: I believe Archbishop Martin is due to retire shortly and there may not be the usual year long extension either. For some reason his period in office and his crawling before the secular power remind me of a classic episode in The Simpsons "Deep Space Homer" [see video at beginning of article]

One thing is for certain: there is no stopping them; the ants will soon be here. And I for one welcome our new insect overlords. I'd like to remind them that as a trusted TV personality, I can be helpful in rounding up others to toil in their underground sugar caves.

And a great job Diarmuid made of it. However I get the impression that even his anti-clerical admirers are getting just a little bit tired of the guy - one might even say they are bored with his endless speaking pious platitudes to power!

Rory Connor

30 November 2020, amended 2 December 2020 

NOTES:

[1]  "A very liberal priest there assured me that he had the same problem getting a response and that our Archbishop only communicates with VIPs!"

So why didn't I think of that? Perhaps because I had heard of Archbishop McQuaid's effort to reply personally to every letter he received.  See for example Colum Kenny's article "My Hour Alone with John Charles McQuaid" (when he was a schoolboy)

 I remember the archbishop later sighing about the amount of correspondence he received from people. He waved a hand across the papers on his desk and muttered: ``They write to me about the system. What system? There are only people''; or words to that effect.

John Charles current successor, Archbishop Diarmuid gets over THAT problem by ignoring correspondence from non-VIPs!

[2] Extract from Phoenix Magazine article on "Patricia Casey" 25 January 2013. 

She has a particular disdain for that experienced media operator and career Church diplomat, the Archbishop of Dublin, Diarmuid Martin. Following Martin's description of the latest crop of young priests as "traditional" (conservative) and "fragile", she dissed the Archbishop in vociferous terms in the the Irish Examiner last July [2012]. Querying with ill-disguised sarcasm whether Martin had access to 'fragile' priests psychological assessments, Casey accused Martin of being unwilling to put forward positive solutions to the crisis in the Church. This she argued is because Martin is afraid of what "critics of the church and of religion might say at any given moment", a fear she describes as "crippling". By critics Casey meant the IT [Irish Times] and other liberal pundits whom she believes - not without foundation - Martin is in thrall to.

The astute Casey also believes - again with justification - that amongst among its priests, Martin is the most unpopular prelate to head the Dublin archdiocese for many years. This is partly because of his willingness to suspend any priest against whom an abuse allegation is made pending inquiries but also because of an apparent distain both for lowly clerics and for traditional Catholic mores. In short he is a liberal sheep in Bishop's vestments. Casey's broadside on young priests stung Martin as evidenced by his riposte defending his choice of language about newly ordained priests. When it comes to the crisis engendered by sex abuse in the Church, Casey has been stern and censorious in her description of clerics' deviant behaviour and what must be done. However, she is also critical of those in the Church, like Martin, whom she believes are on the run from aggressive secularists."

Nice to see my own views confirmed!