Sister Stanislaus Kennedy and False Allegations against The Sisters of Charity [1]

Sister Stan Apologises but Defends Nuns against "Elder Abuse"

SUMMARY

Sister Stanislaus Kennedy was the victim of obscene and lying allegations from the late Mary Raftery in 1999. She was subjected to  a barrage of abuse from Irish "liberal" journalists for months - until the social worker who was supposed to have informed her about the sexual abuse of children in the 1970s wrote to the Irish Times to state that he had done no such thing. Nothing discouraged, Sister Stan publicly apologised in 2009 for the alleged abuse of children by the Sisters of Charity. In 2015 she bravely defied the Irish Bishops to announce she was voting in favour of same-sex marriage.  Then in 2017 she expressed her surprise at the new barrage of abuse directed at the Sisters of Charity during a controversy over the transfer of the National Maternity Hospital which they had founded in the 19th century. She described the lies hurled at her colleagues as "Elder Abuse" -  a description which some would regard as pitifully inadequate.

Sister Stan is very much on the left "liberal" wing of the Irish Church and has been criticised by conservatives both inside and outside the Church. However it seems to have escaped her attention that the only people to resort to obscene abuse and lies are her own "liberal" friends!

[ For a conservative critique of Sister Stan's political and economic ideas see the article by Richard Miller of the Edmund Burke Institute "Sister Stan's Road to Serfdom" ]

SISTER STAN AND THE LIES OF MARY RAFTERY

1999 Mary Raftery and Sister Stanislaus Kennedy (1)
[Irish Times, Letters Page,  22 December 1999 ]

SUFFER THE LITTLE CHILDREN

Sir - In relation to the recent controversy regarding whether or not Sister Stan knew about sexual abuse in Kilkenny in the late 1970s I would like to put the record straight.

I was the childcare worker referred to in the States of Fear programme and in the book Suffer the Little Children, who resigned from St. Joseph's Kilkenny in 1977.

I did not tell Sr Stan at any stage that children were being sexually abused in St. Joseph's because I myself was unaware that sexual abuse was occurring.

It was in 1995/1996 that I got my first inkling that children had been sexually abused in 1977, almost 20 years after it is alleged that I told Sr Stan.

It is my belief today, as it was then, that Sister Stan did everything she could in 1977 regarding the children in St. Joseph's.

Yours etc

EDWARD MURPHY 
Westfield 
Kilkenny


1999 Mary Raftery and Sister Stanislaus (2) 

Extract from SUFFER THE LITTLE CHILDREN by Mary Raftery and Eoin O'Sullivan

".While the publication of the Kennedy Report was greeted with considerable publicity and wide approval, it was clear that neither the State nor the Catholic Church shared that enthusiasm for change....... A year after the report had been published, one of the civil servants on the Kennedy Committee was to receive the full brunt of criticism from the Catholic Church. At the Church's major seminar on child care in Killarney in 1971, he was called into a room and held to account by the Bishop of Kerry, Eamon Casey, and by Sister Stanislaus Kennedy, even at that stage a major force in the history of child care. They wanted to know how it was that the Department of Education could have presided over a report which gave the religious orders so little credit for their great work on behalf of children for so many decades"

Mary Raftery gives the source of the above account as an article by Fintan O'Toole "Not Asking Questions Cold Again Fail Children" Irish Times 21 May 1999. When journalist Breda O'Brien questioned this story she came under attack by Fintan O'Toole. The following is an extract from Breda O'Brien's response in the Irish Times on 10 January 2000. Her article is entitled "A Search for the Truth Does Not Question Reality of Child Abuse".

"On December 10th, 1999, Fintan O'Toole declares that "Breda O'Brien, a sincere and committed journalist, has made extravagant claims about her own alleged ability to uncover flawed research in SUFFER THE LITTLE CHILDREN.." (One shudders to think what an insincere and uncommitted journalist might be capable of)..........................

O'Toole claims that in the 1970s, Sister Stan, along with Bishop Casey, in a private room berated the two civil servants from the Department of Justice and Education who sat on the Kennedy Committee. O'Toole claims sources who say that this incident happened.


My sources who say it did not happen are; Sister Stan: Risteard MacConcradha, the representative of the Department of Justice; Antoin O'Gormain, the representative of the Department of Education; and Richard O'Donovan, of the Department of Education, secretary to the Kennedy Committee. Who are O'Toole's "sources"? Bishop Casey perhaps?" [Highlighting is mine. RC ]

2005 Mary Raftery Slandered Bishop Peter Birch (3)
In the early 1960’s Sr Stanislaus was sent to Kilkenny to work alongside the Bishop of Ossory Peter Birch in developing Kilkenny Social Services. For nineteen years  until his death in 1981, Bishop Birch was guide and mentor to Sr. Stanislaus as the Kilkenny social services developed into an innovative, comprehensive model of community care becoming a blue-print for the rest of Ireland. Naturally he also attracted the attention of Mary Raftery!


In March 2005 Mary Raftery wrote in the Irish Times - in relation to St Joseph's residential school in Kilkenny run by the Sisters of Charity:

Several of these children, as young as four, were subjected to over a decade of continuous and savage abuse both physical and sexual. We know that a number of them told adults of the torture that they were suffering. We know that a number of prominent individuals, including the local bishop, Dr. Peter Birch, and Sister Stanislaus Kennedy, were made aware of some of the allegations of abuse. We know that for the children concerned little or nothing happened as a result of their complaints.

When challenged by the Superior General of the Sisters of Charity Mary Raftery replied:

 I neither stated nor implied that Bishop Birch was aware that boys at St. Joseph's were being sexually abused.

The connivance of the Irish media ensured that Ms Raftery was allowed to get away with her blatant lies!

SISTER STAN AND THE RYAN REPORT (2009)

The Report of the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse (Ryan Report) was published on 20 May 2009 and depicted residential institutions run by the Catholic Church over decades as places where sexual and physical abuse were endemic. As per Wikipedia "The Report's conclusions section (Chapter 6) supports the overall tenor of the accusations without exception" 

In effect the Commission ignored allegations that were clearly false while accepting as true any accusation of abuse that the religious orders could not prove was false!

2009 Sr Stan apologises to abuse victims
Sister Stanislaus Kennedy - Sorry and ashamed
[ RTE News Wednesday, 1 Jul 2009 ] 

Sister Stanislaus Kennedy has apologised unreservedly to survivors of child abuse in Catholic-run institutions. Sr Stan said the Sisters of Charity were sad, sorry and ashamed that children suffered physical, emotional and sexual abuse while under their care. 
She also said that the order must now live up to its financial responsibilities.

Sr Stan is a prominent campaigner for homeless people.

The order is holding a conference on social justice in Dublin today.

The Ryan report into institutional child abuse [and] the economic downturn will be discussed at the conference.

Sr Miriam Hennessey of the Sisters of Charity told the conference that the findings of the report were 'overwhelming and disturbing' for all her nuns. On behalf of the congregation, she apologised again to all past pupils for what took place in the institutions under the congregation's care.

President Mary McAleese has described the institutional abuse of children as 'a millstone of biblical proportions in Irish history'. Addressing a conference organised, she said the abuse of some of the children in the nuns' care was a sad chapter in their history, which calls for resilience, determination, humility and focus in the journey of amending and healing that lies ahead.

SISTER STAN AND SAME-SEX MARRIAGE

2015   Sr Stan to vote in favour of same sex marriage
Well-known social activist at odds with Catholic hierarchy on referendum stance
[ Irish Times, 11 May 2015 by Carl O'Brien]

Sr Stanislaus Kennedy has announced she will vote in favour of same-sex marriage in the forthcoming referendum.

“I have thought a lot about this,” she told The Irish Times. “I am going to vote Yes in recognition of the gay community as full members of society. They should have an entitlement to marry. It is a civil right and a human right.”

Sr Stan (75), as she is widely known, is a member of the congregation of the Religious Sisters of Charity and founder of the homeless support organisation Focus Ireland.

When asked how she reconciled her position with the Catholic Church’s teaching on the issue, she said she was speaking in a personal capacity.

“I have a big commitment to equality for all members of society. It’s what my life has been about. We have discriminated against members of the gay and lesbian community for too long. This is a way of embracing them as full members of society.”

She was speaking following a contribution to a conference on the impact of austerity policies organised by the trade union Unite.

Catholic Church leaders, however, have strongly supported a No vote in the referendum.  Earlier this month, the Catholic primate Archbishop Eamon Martin reiterated the church’s opposition to same-sex unions on the basis that they were not “similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriage and family.” .....


NOTE: The five justices of the UK Supreme Court recently ruled that the refusal of Asher's Bakery in Belfast to make a cake with a slogan supporting same-sex marriage was not discriminatory. The dispute began in 2014 and even some LGBT people thought it was a mistake to push the issue. What is Sister's Stan's view?

SISTER STAN, THE NATIONAL MATERNITY HOSPITAL AND "ELDER ABUSE"

2017  Depiction of Sisters of Charity Like ‘Elder Abuse’, Says Sr Stan 

Nun was shocked by some of the ‘very distasteful’ media coverage of the order
[Irish Times, Saturday  3 June 2017, article by Paul Cullen]

The depiction of the Sisters of Charity during the recent controversy over the transfer of the National Maternity Hospital to St Vincent’s hospital was akin to elder abuse, according to one of the order’s best-known members.

Sr Stanislaus Kennedy said she was shocked and surprised by the scale of the controversy over St Vincent’s and the criticisms levelled at her order. “It shook me, it really did.”

During the controversy, very little thought was given to the background of the Sisters of Charity and the work its members had done over the years, she said. She said her order had been depicted as “a power-grabbing congregation” and “a group of old ladies who didn’t know what they were doing”. “A lot of the stuff that came out in the media about us was very hurtful. There was a lot of misunderstanding and misrepresentation. It was very distasteful.”

Sr Stanislaus, the founder of Focus Ireland and the Immigrant Council of Ireland, said her order had been depicted as “a power-grabbing congregation” and “a group of old ladies who didn’t know what they were doing”. “In another context, this would come under elder abuse,” said the 78-year-old nun.

The controversy was sparked by the revelation last month [May 2017] that the Sisters of Charity would own the National Maternity Hospital when it moved from Holles Street to St Vincent’s because it owns the wider campus. Critics claimed the State was “gifting” the new facility to the order, which could have undue influence on the maternity hospital.

However, last Monday, the order announced it was withdrawing completely from St Vincent’s and would therefore have no involvement in the NMH when it moves.

Minister for Health Simon Harris will next week tell Cabinet his plans for the €300 million project, which is fully supported by both hospitals.

Homeless work
Sr Stanislaus pointed out that Sisters of Charity has a long-term record of giving properties away. Thirty years ago, it led the way for other orders by providing Stanhope Street convent in central Dublin for use as housing for the homeless.

The order had also provided properties at the North Circular Road, Richmond Road, Harold’s Cross and Baldoyle in Dublin, and in Cork and Waterford, for housing and other charitable purposes.

 “We are a hard-working, humble congregation that did its work for years without much notice.”

We are a hard-working, humble congregation that did its work for years without much notice
The order gave “quietly, without bells and whistles” but fulfilled what it set out to do in terms of honouring the aims of its founders, Sr Mary Aikenhead, she said.

Sr Stanislaus said she knew nuns working in St Vincent’s who had given their lives for the needs of the powerless. “I might be better-known in the media, but I couldn’t hold a candle to these colleagues in terms of lifelong dedication.”

Asked whether the order should have done more to put its point of view across, Sr Stanislaus said she could understand why the Sisters would not want to go before “the barrage of the media”.

Although she was not involved in the discussions about withdrawing from St Vincent’s, she said she was aware “for a number of years” this was under discussion.

Asked whether complete withdrawal had been contemplated, or whether this was a response to the controversy, she said: “I think we would have withdrawn anyway. That was the plan.”

CONCLUSION

I have given prominence to what might be regarded as a minor episode i.e. the claim by Mary Raftery and Fintan O'Toole that at a Conference meeting in 1971, Sister Stan berated a civil servant who sat on the Kennedy Committee on child care for failing to give credit to the Church for its work on behalf of children. This is hardly the worst of the thuggish attacks directed at Sister Stanislaus Kennedy and the Sisters of Charity. However it has its own significance. This is NOT one person's word against another's.  Every civil servant who attended the Conference, confirmed to journalist Breda O'Brien that no such episode took place. So where did Raftery and O'Toole get their data from? The same place that an anti-Semite gets his information about Jews?

I have a personal interest in the episode where Mary Raftery slandered Dr. Peter Birch. In the 1960s our Novice Master Brother Maurice Kirk used to speak to us about the Bishop of Ossory and the then De La Salle Novitiate in Castletown, Co. Laois is in the diocese of Ossory!

Sister Stanislaus did finally speak out last year in the wake of the controversy about the National Maternity Hospital. Her description of the torrent of lies directed at her colleagues as "Elder Abuse" was inadequate and seems to suggest that Catholic nuns are just another group of "vulnerable victims". I don't think she understands what type of society we are living in - or that the liberal Catholics who helped to create it have a moral obligation to try to undo some of the damage they have done!. (For example see my previous article "The Apologies of the Sisters of Mercy...")

Justine McCarthy, Fintan O'Toole and the Power of The Patriarchy

Justine McCarthy

Fintan O'Toole

Women Can Shout Out Loud But It Takes a Man’s Voice to Make Society Listen [1]

Justine McCarthy has an article in the Sunday Times on 15 October 2017, 'Boycott of Newstalk Goes Both Ways Now'  that includes sentiments that would cause  our FemiNazis to foam with rage if she wasn't one herself.
The sub-heading is "Women Can Shout Out Loud But It Takes a Man’s Voice to Make Society Listen"

The following is a sample:
"The morning Fintan O’Toole wrote in the Irish Times that he would no longer appear on Newstalk radio because it was “flagrantly sexist”, I texted him: “I just want to say, as a woman, thank you for writing that column.” .........

I agreed with O’Toole’s every sentiment, except the very first one in the opening sentence when he modestly opined that his declaration of a boycott was “of no consequence”. It was bound to create ructions, for he is eminent, erudite, and a man. Ergo, he is listened to.......

Women can yell from the rooftops but it takes a man’s voice to make the world listen......Women will continue to need courageous men to speak out until female liberation is credibly delivered. [My emphasis]  It is no coincidence, after all, that there is a man in emancipation. ...."

Now I do understand that the above is part of a convoluted argument about Victimhood and Oppression. Justine McCarthy did NOT intend to depict herself as a helpless simpering female who is writing a hymn of praise to the dominant male sex .  HOWEVER it could certainly be interpreted that way and McCarthy COULD conceivable have her career destroyed by fellow FemiNazis. So why is she allowed to get away with it?

Women Can Shout Out Loud But It Takes a Man’s Voice to Make Society Listen [2]

I wrote about the Fintan O'Toole article that Justine McCarthy is so keen on here. The title is "Fintan O'Toole and the Two Archbishops" and there is an extract below:

In his article of 12 September entitled "Why I will Not Appear on Newstalk Again" (subtitle "George Hook’s Rape Comments are the Result of the Station’s Flagrantly Sexist Strategy"), Fintan O'Toole begins as follows:

"What I have to say is of no consequence. The organisation against which it is aimed will be no more conscious of it than a speeding car is of a fly mashed into the corner of its windscreen. But here it is anyway: from now on I won’t be appearing on any Newstalk programmes." 

O'Toole presents himself as a lone individual who is "speaking truth to power" and bravely taking a stance against "the powers that be". The opposite would be closer to the truth!

Women Can Shout Out Loud But It Takes a Man’s Voice to Make Society Listen [3]

It would be interesting to watch Irish feminists' reaction if Breda O'Brien wrote a similar adoring tribute to the Dominant White Male - with David Quinn as the object of her affections!

Irish feminists  are becoming as stupid as they are vicious. I have written here and elsewhere about Fiona Doyle and her statement that women have the right to walk down the street drunk or naked if they so desire. An aspiring rapist's wet dream!

Irish Salem: Fiona Doyle and George Hook

This type of demand for "Rights" is well expressed in the old doggerel

Here lies the body of Michael Jay
Who died maintaining his right of way.
He was right, quite right as he sped along,
But he's just as dead as if he were wrong.

The stupidity is linked to the fact that feminists believe they can get away with publishing ANY kind of rubbish. They no longer have to exercise their brain cells - and boy does it show!

The following are a couple of comments and my reply

Originally Posted by 'Who is John Galt?' 

 Just as robbers have no right to steal the Patek Philippe I leave on the passenger seat of my unlocked car.

Of course men do not have the right to rape any woman.

The cops might take a different view of my common sense however.

Reply by 'tokkie' to 'Who is John Galt'

Rape and theft are gulfs apart in terms of crime.  So too are the motivations, reasons and logic of the perpetrators behind either crime.   

Comparing them is a bit weird.  Dark too.

My Reply (Kilbarry1) to 'tokkie'

OK. Take the case of a man who insists on walking through a dangerous area of a city at night and does so regularly, sometimes while drunk as well. The police stop and question him a few times - because no outsider in his right senses should be there at night. The guy insists that he is doing nothing unlawful, he is entitled to walk the streets of his own city and the police are supposed to protect him. All of these are valid points - in the same way that Michael Jay had a valid point  (see post #5181). Eventually he is attacked and murdered.

What do you think the police will say among themselves about this guy?

Also his murderer will NOT get a reduced sentence by saying the guy was an idiot who had no business being in the area - but that does not change some basic facts. And one of the facts is that the murder victim WAS an idiot.

Women Can Shout Out Loud But It Takes A Man's Voice to Make Society Listen [4]

Originally Posted by 'talkingshop'

Yeah, I'm not disputing that he [George Hook] probably meant the right thing, but the way he said it was wrong. He suggested "some blame" might be attached to the girl, which could be interpreted as saying that the "blame" for the rape was somehow shared, and that the rapist therefore had less "blame" to carry because of the behavior of the girl. I don't think that is what he meant, but it could be interpreted that way.

Reply by 'Who is John Galt?'
A mistake that hardly warranted the explosion of indignation and cleaver-wielding that has ensued since.
George Hook has suffered more for that remark than the accused rapist.

My Reply to 'Who is John Galt?' and 'talkingshop'  

Yes indeed feminists can talk utter drivel and get away with it whereas if a 'reactionary' puts one foot wrong, he will be savagely criticised. I have written previously how Justine McCarthy got away with her hymn of praise to the Dominant White Male in the form of Fintan O'Toole (Sunday Times, 15 October). I will just repeat a short extract from post #5181

It would be interesting to watch Irish feminists reaction if Breda O'Brien wrote a similar adoring tribute to the Dominant White Male - with David Quinn as the object of her affections!.....

And again
.....Now I do understand that the above is part of a convoluted argument about Victimhood and Oppression. Justine McCarthy did NOT intend to depict herself as a helpless simpering female who is writing a hymn of praise to the dominant male sex .  HOWEVER it could certainly be interpreted that way and McCarthy COULD conceivable have her career destroyed by fellow FemiNazis. So why is she allowed to get away with it?

There is also the following in the same article by Justine McCarthy:
"Twelve years ago, I summoned the courage to write about how Brendan Comiskey, a former Bishop of Ferns, had threatened to rape me in the course of an interview conducted in his house when he was drunk and I was frightened. The next morning, a priest in a Dublin parish denounced me from the pulpit at Sunday mass. I have run scared from discussing the incident in public ever since. Job done. Woman silenced."

So she was silenced by a belt from the crozier. But hold on - a PRIEST does not have a crozier. Was he even a Parish Priest or just the local curate??

So what is the female equivalent of WIMP and why have Justine's feminist colleagues not criticised her for her cowardice?

Women Can Shout Out Loud But It Takes A Man's Voice to Make Society Listen [5]

Extracted from a post by 'EPIC SUCCESS'
Hook is a drooling simpleton ......
 a idiot like George who adjusts his accent for British RP (received pronunciation) speakers, who makes a fool of himself over his obsession with Pamela Anderson, who likes to pontificate, who has a very obvious belief in a class system and sneers at the working class, who works for filth like Denis O'Brien,  
........... He has and always will be, radio text bait and certainly not a 'broadcaster' or 'journalist' in the traditional sense of the word.

My Reply to 'EPIC SUCESS'

Any comment on Justine McCarthy's statement about Bishop Brendan Comiskey in the Sunday Times 2 days ago? It is part of an article whose subtitle is "Women Can Shout Out Loud But It Takes A Man's Voice to Make Society Listen" [see post nos 5181 and 5232]

"Twelve years ago, I summoned the courage to write about how Brendan Comiskey, a former Bishop of Ferns, had threatened to rape me in the course of an interview conducted in his house when he was drunk and I was frightened. The next morning, a priest in a Dublin parish denounced me from the pulpit at Sunday mass. I have run scared from discussing the incident in public ever since. Job done. Woman silenced."

"Job done. Woman silenced" because she was afraid of a belt of a priest's walking stick??

The above is part of McCarthy's  denunciation of Newstalk and hymn of praise to Dominant White Males (and specifically Fintan O'Toole.) "Drooling simpleton" would be a mild description for Justine McCarthy since the description only targets her intellect and not her morals. Should The Sunday Times take action against her?

George Hook and That Old Time Religion

George Hook

[Or I could have entitled this "George Hook and the Four Cardinal Virtues"]

A few of my so-called friends have suggested to me that - while, they agree with some of my views [traitors!]- they feel I am being too extreme and alienating potential supporters. One even quoted to me the words of St Francis de Sales: "You can catch more flies with a spoonful of honey than with a hundred barrels of vinegar".  OK I looked up the quote and St. Francis de Sales was Bishop of Geneva from 1602 to his death in 1622 but was never able to reside there because the area was firmly under Calvinist control. I have no doubt that he was a very holy man but the "spoonful of honey" approach was the only possible one he could have adopted in the circumstances! And apparently he had some success.

So taking inspiration from the Saint, I will quote some of my more "moderate" comments from the Politics.ie discussion on George Hook.

The Meaning of the word "Responsible" [1]

Originally posted by owedtojoy
 22-year-old man raped in an alleyway after leaving Glasgow nightclub   The Independent 25/09/17

Was he a "slag"? A "slapper"? Was he drunk? Wear his jeans too tight? Shouldn't he stay out of alleyways?

 What did he do to get himself raped?

Reply by Pabilito to owedtojoy:
Well yes he put himself in a dangerous situation wandering alone around dark alleyways in the early hours. He certainly does bear some personal responsibility however that doesn’t detract any blame for the crime from the rapist.

I once worked for an American multinational and sometimes would take visiting engineers out for a meal and a few drinks in Dublin, one particular guy insisted on staying on late in Temple Bar when we all went home and I told him to be careful and gave him money for a Taxi. Following morning I learned that he’d been stabbed several times in a laneway behind Pearse Street. Fortunately he survived and when I visited him in hospital before I could say anything he said “I know, I know I was stupid .. I got drunk and went up the lane for a pee”.

Reply by Kilbarry1 - to owedtojoy and Pablito
Leaving the fanatical man-haters aside for a minute, SOME of these disagreements are about the meaning of words and in particular the word "responsibility":

(a) "Responsibility" can relate to the concept of Justice - and so we have criminal responsibility. A criminal is always fully responsible for the crime he or she commits - and this applies even if the victim has been careless e.g. wandering the streets late and drunk.

(b) The other meaning is more closely related to the virtue of Prudence. Every person has a duty (responsibility) to take reasonable  care of their own safety.

When I was at school, we were taught that the four cardinal virtues were Prudence, Justice, Fortitude (Courage) and Temperance. Our very orthodox teachers also told us there might appear to be contradictions between the four but "properly understood" the contradictions disappeared. One topic we discussed in religion class about 1965 was Prudence vs Fortitude e.g. if you were a soldier in wartime just what did "Prudence" mean. Of course we came to the conclusion that the virtue was still valid but it didn't mean the same kind of behaviour as in civilian life!

 As young teenagers, we had no great problem making that kind of distinction. I went to an all-male school but I'm sure that girls of the same age had the same ability to apply logical reasoning.  Nowadays many adults - especially women - seem unable to understand the concept of "responsibility" and the fact that it doesn't mean exactly the same thing in relation to Justice as it does in relation to Prudence. It is quite possible for a criminal to be 100% responsible for committing a crime AND for the victim to have facilitated the crime by stupid or careless behaviour!

The Meaning of the word "Responsible" [2]

Of course we came to the conclusion that the virtue was still valid but it didn't mean the same kind of behaviour as in civilian life!

And the reason for the "of course" was that it was a directed discussion with the adult teacher very much in charge. If the discussion had veered in the direction of "Prudence is meaningless in wartime" or "Prudence is only cowardice" then the adult would have stepped in to correct us. Nowadays it is the adults who are leading the hysterical mob against someone who probably has much the same values that we teenagers accepted in 1965.

I recall a comment by George Orwell when he was writing dismissively about Spiritualism - which was the New Age Philosophy of his own time. He wrote something to the effect that "It may well be true to say that organised  religion is a defence against superstition".  It is also a defence against the kind of hysteria directed against Kevin Myers and now George Hook. (Let's not forget that Kevin Myers was denounced as an anti-Semite and our Taoiseach and Tanaiste joined in the chorus of abuse.)

The Churches and Personal Responsibility

No doubt it's because I'm getting old but I am saddened by the failure of the Catholic Church - and especially our own Archbishop Diarmuid Martin - to say anything about the hysteria generated by the media against anyone they dislike. I have quoted the following in a previous post but it is worth repeating:

The following is the beginning of an article by Church of Ireland Archbishop (and Primate) Richard Clarke in Irish Times on 12 September. In the PRINT version it is headed "Defensive Rage of Social Media is Horrifying" with sub-heading  "Reasoned persuasion has been replaced by the hasty production of battle-lines"

"It is a truism that we are living in a culture of adversarial anger. We most readily discover our identity not by establishing what we are, but in finding and vilifying those who are against us. A cursory engagement with social media will horrify most of us. It reveals a pervasive if anonymised defensive rage. It is an inchoate anger that can also present itself – even more dangerously – in the casual savage violence visible throughout our island.

"In an apparent corollary, civic discourse (and not merely within political life) is likewise being steadily degraded as a stark binary pose on all issues becomes the predominant public mindset – no reasoned discussion, simply some new scheme presented with a minimum of nuance and a surfeit of self-righteous assertiveness

"The routes of reasoned persuasion have been replaced by the hasty production of battle-lines. In the midst of this is it not sensible to suggest that more wholesome conversations are needed in our public discourse? In particular, we surely need to consider together not simply the latest momentary squabble but far deeper matters. .......

 [It seems to me that the remainder of the article is a bit disconnected from this beginning. Did the Archbishop do a last minute revision in order to take on board the hysteria surrounding George Hook -including the hysteria propagated by Fintan O'Toole?]

Has any Catholic Bishop said anything as powerful as that? I do understand that Catholic clergy feel they cannot speak out on this sort of issue without exposing themselves to the same torrent of rage that was directed at George Hook. BUT there is one exception -our own beloved Archbishop of Dublin Diarmuid Martin. Archbishop Diarmuid is a hero to secular liberals like Fintan O'Toole. It would be safe for him to speak out and condemn the hate-filled ranting. So why doesn't he do so. Maybe it's BECAUSE he is a hero to secular liberals (like Fintan O'Toole) - and wants to ensure that things stay that way?

Fintan O'Toole and the Two Archbishops

Fintan O'Toole

Archbishop Eamon Martin (Catholic) and Richard Clarke (Anglican)

Fintan O'Toole "columnist, literary editor and drama critic for the Irish Times" is described by Wikipedia as having "generally left-wing views" which is a curious way of putting it and might suggest that he occasionally expresses viewpoints that stray from the strictly orthodox. This is not correct!

The following is from a discussion on the politics.ie website regarding George Hook Note that the two Archbishops I refer to in the title, are John Charles McQuaid who died in 1973 and the current Church of Ireland Primate Richard Clarke. (For obvious reasons, there is no photo of those two  standing side by side but I'm sure that, given the opportunity, Fintan O'Toole would write a kindly review of a book that slandered Archbishop Eamon Martin!)

In his article of 12 September entitled "Why I will Not Appear on Newstalk Again" (subtitle "George Hook’s Rape Comments are the Result of the Station’s Flagrantly Sexist Strategy")
Fintan O'Toole begins as follows:
What I have to say is of no consequence. The organisation against which it is aimed will be no more conscious of it than a speeding car is of a fly mashed into the corner of its windscreen. But here it is anyway: from now on I won’t be appearing on any Newstalk programmes

O'Toole presents himself as a lone individual who is "speaking truth to power" and bravely taking a stance against "the powers that be". The opposite would be closer to the truth!


Fintan O'Toole and Believing Lies

Original Post by Surkov
There is a piece on this by Fintan O'Toole in the Irish Times where he lambasts Newstalk. In his mind, he seems to imagine that the entire organisation is corrupt, hateful, etc. As though some cancer of hate had metasticised to an horrific extent.

Admittedly I don't listen to it all that much, but Newstalk seems pretty standard fare to me. Why does FOT hate it so much? Did they do something to him in the past that made it personal for him

Reply by Kilbarry1
I don't know the specifics of why Fintan O'Toole hates Newstalk. I have his article in front of me now and it is indeed grossly over the top.  One clue as to his attitude. In 1999 John Cooney former Religious Affairs correspondent for the IT (and future one for the Indo) published a biography of John Charles McQuaid that depicted him as a homosexual paedophile. The allegations were panned by every historian who reviewed the book and by ALMOST every journalist. (Guess who was the exception.) Reviewers who praised the remainder of the book said that Cooney should have omitted the Paedo claims. Most anti-clerics were annoyed and embarrassed; I recall one guy who REGRETTED that the accusation might create sympathy for the late Archbishop!

The exception was of course Fintan O'Toole. Not that he exactly believed the claims but he WANTED to believe them. The article entitled "Cooney Has At Least Posed Right Question" was published in the Irish Times on 26 November 1999.
"...   In the midst of the recent controversy over the allegations in John Cooney's new book that John Charles McQuaid had an unhealthy sexual interest in young boys, I began to interrogate that old memory. Was it just an innocent encounter with a nice old man who was privately more at ease with children than his stern public demeanour would suggest? Or must all such memories now be lit with the sinister glow of corruption?

The answer, tentative and paradoxical though it must be, is probably "yes" in both cases. Certainly, John Cooney's suggestions are not backed by anything approaching an acceptable level of historical evidence. But at the same time anyone reading another book published this week has to acknowledge that everything we know about the history of the State has to be re-examined from the bleak perspective of its most vulnerable children." [The book was "Suffer the Little Children" by Mary Raftery]   .........

"Speculating about the nature of John Charles McQuaid's sexuality, as John Cooney does, may not be the right answer. But John Cooney at least managed, as no historian has done, to pose the right question. ....."

O'Toole's thuggish desire to believe lies because those lies would depict his enemies in a bad light, may throw some light on his  rant in today's IT!

Interesting Article by Church of Ireland Archbishop Richard Clarke

Interesting Article by Church of Ireland Archbishop (and Primate) Richard Clarke in Irish Times on 12 September. In the PRINT version it is headed "Defensive Rage of Social Media is Horrifying" with sub-heading "Reasoned persuasion has been replaced by the hasty production of battle-lines"

It is a truism that we are living in a culture of adversarial anger. We most readily discover our identity not by establishing what we are, but in finding and vilifying those who are against us. A cursory engagement with social media will horrify most of us. It reveals a pervasive if anonymised defensive rage. It is an inchoate anger that can also present itself – even more dangerously – in the casual savage violence visible throughout our island.

In an apparent corollary, civic discourse (and not merely within political life) is likewise being steadily degraded as a stark binary pose on all issues becomes the predominant public mindset – no reasoned discussion, simply some new scheme presented with a minimum of nuance and a surfeit of self-righteous assertiveness.

The routes of reasoned persuasion have been replaced by the hasty production of battle-lines. In the midst of this is it not sensible to suggest that more wholesome conversations are needed in our public discourse? In particular, we surely need to consider together not simply the latest momentary squabble but far deeper matters. ......

It seems to me that the remainder of the article is a bit disconnected from this beginning. Did the Archbishop do a last minute revision in order to take on board the hysteria surrounding George Hook??

Also his article is on the same page as Fintan O'Toole's preposterous one "Why I Won't be Appearing on Newstalk any more." It functions as a kind of response to O'Toole's rant!
NOTE: See Post #1835 concerning Fintan O'Toole vs a different Archbishop!

Newstalk Managing Editor Patricia Monahan Replies to Fintan O’Toole

However I see that Newstalk managing editor Patricia Monahan replied to Fintan O’Toole on 16 September in an article entitled All who work in Newstalk subject of outrageously unfair attack

Among the points she makes are:

....... O’Toole chose to ignore several salient facts, most importantly the number of women employed by the station and their impact on the daily output. Would it not have been worth mentioning that I as a woman, am Newstalk’s managing editor, that the chairperson of our group is a woman, or that our head of news is a woman? At Newstalk, the majority of our production staff are women. As editor, I am the final decision-maker on all editorial matters and have responsibility for content produced by the station across all platforms. But my work apparently deserves no recognition because I am not a presenter. Do I not qualify as female representation because my voice is not heard on-air? ....

Does [Fintan O'Toole] conclude that we are all party to a concerted effort by the station to “keep women presenters off the airwaves” and that I as the principal editorial decision-maker proactively restructured the schedule to do just that in a “highly conscious” manner? .....

As a commercial station in Newstalk we fight for audience share in every quarter hour of every day, as if our lives depend on it. And the truth is, our livelihoods do. That is the commercial reality of our business. Almost €40 million has been invested in Newstalk in a media landscape where the State-owned broadcaster is given the lion’s share of the €330 million collected in television licence fees. We don’t have the luxury of hiring men or women because it is the politically correct thing to do. We make decisions that make sense for the business....

And Finally:
One is only left to wonder why he never bothered to tell anyone at Newstalk how “flagrantly . . . and systematically sexist” the station was on any of his visits to our studios. [My emphasis]

The last point is the key one. Fintan O'Toole joined a lynch mob BECAUSE it was a lynch mob.