'We've Been Treated Like Monsters' - Sisters of Charity in fear of media and bewildered by negative coverage

 

NUNS OUT OR ELSE GOVERNMENT'S OUT!

(A) INTRODUCTION

Michael Kelly, editor of The Irish Catholic writes on 19 May 2022: 

The Religious Sisters of Charity, who agreed to hand over their hospital and the site of the new National maternity Hospital, are fearful of the media and feel bewildered that they have been so badly portrayed in the public eye since deciding to transfer ownership of St. Vincent's Hospital in Dublin. The Government this week signed off on the deal.

"You would think we were evil", a source close to the Sisters told the The Irish Catholic this week on on condition of anonymity. "We've been treated like monsters. In no way do they want the Church involved in any way [in the running of healthcare].  Yet many, many people experienced the care and work that the Sisters had done - many in the Irish population experienced care and concern and compassion. Yes there were some exceptions but for the most part the good that was done was amazing," the source said

The Religious Sisters of Charity began caring for cholera victims in Ireland in 1832 and in 1834 set up St Vincent's Hospital and since then have been "dedicated to providing the best possible healthcare in hospitals, hospices, nursing homes and in the homes of the sick. The nuns are also known for their work among prisoners and the homeless as well as in education, counselling and emigration. It is distressing that people would think so badly of us. I'm more concerned for the people who are saying these things than for us," [!] continued the source.

"The Sisters are absolutely terrified of the media and the way they have been portrayed. The notion that a young person listening to this, what idea of Christianity do they go away with?" she said.

My Own Suggested Answer: Is this "source" Sister Stanislaus Kennedy by any chance? I have posted previous articles about the Sisters of Charity and Sister Stan - the latest being "The Folly of the Sisters of Charity (and other Nuns)" However the most relevant response to this question is contained in the Introduction and in part D ("Eloi and Morlocks") of my article "The Decadence of the Sisters of Mercy" 

What idea of Christianity do young people go away with? the Sister asks. One of two things: (i) either they believe the atrocity stories published by the media about the Sisters OR (ii) they regard you as cowardly fools who practise a decadent kind of religion that prevents you from defending yourselves!

(B) Why are Sisters of Charity "Treated like Monsters" by Media and Politicians?

The leaders of the Religious Sisters of Charity (like their Sister of Mercy colleagues and other nuns' leaders) have spent many years trying to ingratiate themselves with our new secular overlords - and made themselves ridiculous in the process. They now find themselves spurned by Traditionalists and Liberals alike! Consider the following:

• "The nuns are annoyed and they consider some of the comments that have been made as being defamatory. I think their attitude now is ‘let the State go off and build their hospital on their own land’." (Valerie Hanley, Mail on Sunday, 23 April 2017) 
  The leaders of the Sisters of Charity should have done this and allowed the the anti-clerical mob of politicians and media to experience the fruits of their own bigotry. Instead they caved in to the mob, handed over property worth hundreds of millions of euro for the new National Maternity Hospital and announced they were withdrawing from their own St. Vincent's Hospital!

• Also in 2017, the Sisters were libelled by journalists and politicians who claimed that they owed €3 million to the State - when the State actually owed the nuns €2 million! As per the same article in The Mail on Sunday: "the claim that the Sisters owed €3 million, had been repeatedly cited by politicians from Fianna Fail, The Greens, Labour and the Social Democrats and the media as justification for outraged comments about the agreement brokered by Kieran Mulvey." 
  Did the Sisters complain or sue for libel? No they told the State it could keep the €2 million it owed them - that will teach the liars about the joys of Christian Charity!

• I have no inside information about the Sisters of Charity but I was told there was a conflict within the Sisters of Mercy about how to treat false accusations. I was told that the dispute pitted older Traditionalist Sisters against "Liberal" colleagues - and the Liberal ones won! I suspect that the same applies to the Religious Sisters of Charity'.

• In 2015 the Sisters' most prominent representative Sr Stanislaus Kennedy announced that was going to vote in favour of same-sex marriage in the forthcoming referendum. She was, of course, "bravely" repudiating Catholic moral teaching and defying the Hierarchy in favour of a group whose cause was supported by every main political party and by the mass media. 

• In 2017 the same Sr Stan reacted to the storm of anti-clerical hatred and lies directed at the nuns by describing it as "Elder Abuse"! [See Depiction of Sisters of Charity like ‘Elder Abuse’, says Sr Stan ] In my article "The Folly of the Sisters of Charity" I wrote that "No Jewish woman face to face with anti-Semites would make that kind of "mistake" and the VERY Charitable Sisters thereby demonstrated their unfitness to survive in the modern world!" 

However- see APPENDIX at end of this article!

(C) Civil War within the Pro-Choice Lobby - an Opportunity for Church??

I think it was Iona Institute Director David Quinn who described the Maternity Hospital debacle as a "civil war within the abortion lobby". Public figures who are strong supporters of abortion rights (plus those who normally take no part in the debate) have found themselves obliged to state that the allegations against the Sisters of Charity and claims of a Catholic Plot to influence the ethos of the NMH are rubbish. Is it too much to hope that this gives an opportunity to the Sisters of Charity (and other female Religious) to restore their reputation in the eyes of the public? 

Well yes I think it is too much to hope! Irish nuns have gutted their morale and their self-respect by decades of grovelling before the Secular Power. Now that the latest outbreak of anti-clerical hysteria is disappearing from the front pages, the Sisters will likely retire into their shells - until the next wave of media hysteria forces them out again! However it may be possible for other parts of the Catholic Church to take advantage of the current opportunity to make the truth known!

Some Unusual "Supporters" of the Catholic Church

(i) In an article in Irish Independent on 5 May 2022 Health Minister Stephen Donnelly (Fianna Fail) said some people had been making "false claims" about the National Maternity Hospital project. "There are people who are making really serious claims that are really worrying people. These claims are false and in many cases they have been told repeatedly that these claims are false." Mr Donnelly said that the Catholic Church was not involved in the project and there would be no religious interference at the hospital....."The Vatican has nothing to do with this. What the Vatican thinks about our national maternity hospital is irrelevant." [NOTE 1]

(ii) In Irish Independent article "Five-year row over maternity hospital now looks like time wasted on someone’s culture war"  Ellen Coyne writes: "Many people are asking why the land the hospital is being built on can’t just be given to the State. Wouldn’t that make things much easier? [Prime Minister] Micheál Martin argued in the Dáil that the hospital land is in public ownership in all but name, as it is being leased for the negligible rate of €10 a year for 299 years. It is worth explaining that what many regard as the best maternity hospitals in Ireland are built on land that the State doesn’t own. These hospitals – like the Coombe, the Rotunda and the existing NMH – are voluntary hospitals. This means that while they get most of their funding from the State, they are run by private bodies....Health Minister Stephen Donnelly said nobody is trying to use a compulsory purchase order on the Rotunda or the Coombe, which operate on land the State doesn’t own."

(iii) However Ivana Bacik, leader of the Labour Party claims “There are concerns about the lingering ethos of the Sisters of Charity". But according to Ellen Coyne: This is a common claim, but one that is described as a “red rag” to those at St Vincent’s who are “seething” over the way the hospital is being portrayed. A senior source at Holles Street [the current National Maternity Hospital] said they believed that claims of religious interference at the new hospital were part of “the biggest misinformation campaign in Irish medicine”.

(iv) Mary Brosnan, director of midwifery and nursing, says. “Because we don’t have strong politicians, we have weak, fearful politicians who are afraid of losing their seats and of women’s opprobrium.” Staff at Holles Street are dismayed, feeling they are fighting a tide of misinformation about the new hospital. Campaigners tweeted pictures from a protest outside an NMH board meeting this week, holding posters declaring that “nuns who sold babies” are to be “gifted” a hospital. This is false not only because the Sisters of Charity will have zero involvement in the new hospital, but also because the hospital will not be “gifted” to anybody. The State will own the hospital building. [ ‘We have a fortnight to get the truth out there’: As Holles Street creaks at the seams, staff battle ‘myths’ by Ellen Coyne]

(v) Younger female staff [at the existing National Maternity Hospital, Holles St] are horrified by the rhetoric in their WhatsApp groups, where friends ask if the nuns are trying to “steal” a hospital. Walking this reporter [Ellen Coyne] through the hospital Brosnan will sometimes pull a midwife aside at random and ask her if she has “any concerns about religious interference at St Vincent’s?” Some look askance. A few cast an incredulous look at the Irish Independent, as though to confirm such a question is genuinely being asked. Emma, a midwife working on the infamous Unit 3, laughs with derision. “No,” she says, “I’m not worried about nuns.” [Above article by Ellen Coyne]

(vi) Professor Shane Higgins, Master of National Maternity Hospital: Higgins is dismayed by politicians who he says are “not doing due diligence” before making claims about the hospital. “They’re willing to just repeat whatever has been said to them by the loudest voice, which is typically and usually Peter Boylan’s,” Dr Higgins says. “I don’t understand why Peter Boylan is continuing to peddle the narrative that he’s been peddling for years about ‘the nuns’, knowing that they’re gone, knowing that they won’t have any influence on anything … he’s out there, he has a very large soapbox upon which to stand...

I assure you, if this is derailed every single member of staff in this hospital and I’d say the vast majority of St Vincent’s will hold him wholly responsible for damaging women’s health for the next 20 years,” Prof Higgins said. [Above article by Ellen Coyne] [NOTE 2]

 (vii) Fifty-two doctors, including Higgins and three other former masters as well as many staff who currently work at Holles Street, signed a letter pleading for the project to go ahead. [Above article by Ellen Coyne] An article in Irish Independent on 6 May 2022 "What the Row is All About - and Who Says What" gives further details. It listed the more than 50 doctors who signed a letter in support of the new Hospital stating that it was "manifestly false" to claim that full State ownership was the only way to avoid religious interference in the new National Maternity Hospital. They included "Professor Shane Higgins, current Master of the NMH; Dr Michael Robson and Prof Declan Keane former Masters of the NMH". The article also quotes Dr Rhona Mahony, former Master of the NMH "Let it be said absolutely today, every procedure that is permissible under Irish law will be performed at the new maternity hospital on St Vincent's campus." 

My Comment

Many people who have no allegiance to the Catholic Church (or would not normally involve themselves in a public dispute concerning religion) now feel compelled to speak out against anti-clerical fanatics whose antics are delaying  the establishment of the new hospital. This is something that our Church should build on!

(D) Against the Hospital 

(according to Irish Independent article, 6 May 2022 "What the Row Is All About"  

Dr Peter Boylan - former Master of the National Maternity Hospital

"If it's to be independent, it should not be owned by another entity." According to David Quinn (in "No Reason to fear Nuns Under the Hospital Bed" 15 May 2022): 

Boylan told the [Oireachtas Health] Committee last Thursday: "It's about time we stood up for ourselves as a people, faced down the church, and said "We need that land thank you". In this case, however there is no church to stand up to; it has already gone. [See also NOTE 3]

Roisin Shortall - Leader of the Social Democrats

"What is known about the new company, St Vincent's Holdings, to which the Government is handing over control of a €1 billion publicly funded hospital?

"Our Maternity Hospital"

A grassroots campaign group that says it is "against Church ownership of women's healthcare."

PLUS: All other opposition parties including Labour and Sinn Fein. HOWEVER the Irish Independent article also points out that while the coalition Government of Fianna Fail, Fine Gael and the Green Party support the project, this is "with the exception of a number of government TDs who are still raising concerns about the project." This is a reference to the Green Party and indeed two Green Party TDs Neasa Hourigan and  Patrick Costello were suspended from the Green Party for six months because they supported a Sinn Fein motion  calling for the new NMH  to be built on land owned by the State. 

(E) CONCLUSION - Sinn Fein and Opponents of Hospital and Church

A few comments about these opponents. 

David Quinn's abovementioned article "No Need to Fear Nuns Under the Hospital Bed" is subtitled "Concerns about a caring, religious ethos at the new national maternity campus resemble the furore of McCarthyite America". He  writes: "Like Senator Joseph McCarthy seeing Communist plots everywhere in the 1950s, we are now being led to believe that sinister nuns will one day succeed in dragging Ireland back to the past, all because the naive refused to heed the warnings." 

The Political Parties opposing the project are almost identical to those who in 2017 accused the Sisters of Charity of owing €3 million to the State - at a time the State owed €2 million to them! See Part B above - "the claim that the Sisters owed €3 million, had been repeatedly cited by politicians from Fianna Fail, The Greens, Labour and the Social Democrats and the media as justification for outraged comments about the agreement.." We are talking about people who utterly reckless as to the truth of their allegations - and who made no apologies once their lie was exposed. 

These are the parties that are most likely to form a coalition with Sinn Fein if and when that party wins our next General Election. OK Fianna Fail is an exception BUT Sinn Fein is well on its way to replacing FF as THE "Republican Party" in the State. Moreover Fianna Fail's willingness to participate in a reckless anti-clerical lie, is a potent symbol of its decline. [NOTE 4]

Regarding my reference to "lie": I suppose that an Honest Bigot - a  left-wing or 'liberal' equivalent of Rev Ian Paisley - could believe in a Catholic Plot to control the ethos of the New National Maternity Hospital. But how is it possible to believe that the nuns owed millions to the State when the reverse was true?? Anti-clerical hatred is similar to the anti-Semitic variety. I doubt if an anti-Semite says to himself: "I know this story about Jews is false, but I'll publish it anyway." Self-deceit and believing what one wants to believe, are more complicated than that. But the description "liar" is still valid and I apply it to the afore-mentioned politicians from Fianna Fail, The Greens, Labour and the Social Democrats.

NOTES

[1] But perhaps Stephen Donnelly is a secret admirer of the Catholic Church? He has neither thanked the nuns for their gift of hugely valuable land for the new NMH nor for their two centuries of service to Irish women. However - as noted in the article by Ellen Coyne, Philip Ryan and Eilish O'Regan - "more than €50 million  has already been spent in preparing the site of the new hospital building."  In the eyes of the State, our anti-clerical fanatics have become a serious nuisance who must now be discredited!

[2] The current master of the NMH at Holles Street, Dr Shane Higgins, told the [Oireachtas Health] committee: “It has been difficult to hear claims both in the media and in this room that my fervent support for the proposed move to Elm Park is some kind surrender to the church. Legitimate concerns are welcome and deserve every consideration, but we must also deal in facts, and I am alarmed by the combination of emotive misinformation and misunderstanding that prevails.” From article by Eilish O'Regan: Release ‘Vatican papers’ on New NMH, Former Master Demands

[3] In her article Maternity Hospital Debate Hijacked by Fear and Loathing, Irish Times journalist Kathy Sheridan wrote on 18 May 2022: 

"On Monday, while the St Vincent’s Healthcare Group was declaring itself “a secular organisation”, Dr Peter Boylan tweeted pictures of Catholic paraphernalia – a wooden crucifix, a Zambian mission hospital collection box, a notice about the streaming of Sunday Mass, apparently in a corridor – which he said were taken an hour before in the “fully secular” (his quotes) St Vincent’s Hospital.

Among the inevitable angry responses calling for a shutdown of all religious iconography and chaplains etc, a staff member calmly noted that the picture selection was from the private hospital where she often uses the oratory for some peace and quiet. Meanwhile the SVHG chair was assuring people that all religious iconography at St Vincent’s public hospital will be removed in the coming months."

Something other than "misunderstanding" lor even "normal" bias is on display here!

[4] In Part D ("Bethany Mother and Baby Home - a PROTESTANT Institution") of article Deaths of Children in Mother and Baby Care Homes (did they die of starvation?) I wrote: 

I was slightly surprised to see that the Protestant Bethany Home was also the subject of false allegations of starving children - coming mainly (of course) from Sinn Fein but Deputy Niall Collins of Fianna Fail makes a contribution as well by referring to Marasmus as "a form of malnutrition". This seems to be the sole Fianna Fail contribution to this brand of hysteria. It does indicate that irrational attacks on the Catholic Church have a way of spreading.- and corrupting the entire society.

Are Fianna Fail now trying to match the Sinn Fein/Labour/Far Left brand of anti-clerical hatred? If so they will lose some core supporters and likely fail to impress the haters anyway!

APPENDIX regarding History of Sisters of Charity & Voluntary Sector

In part B above, I refer to the folly and cowardice of the current leadership of the Religious Sisters of Charity. However, it is only fair to recall their very different history. In his article Nun Better for Generosity, Charity and Care in the Sunday Times on 8 May 2022, David Quinn wrote:

For most of the last 300 years the voluntary [i.e. non-State] sector has been run by religious organisations both Protestant and Catholic. The Religious Sisters of Charity founded St. Vincent's Hospital on its original St Stephen's Green site in 1835. It was run by women, for women. From a feminist point of view, you would think this is a good thing, but not when those in charge are nuns apparently. 

The congregation was established in 1815  by Mary Aikenhead. It played a leading role in the fight against a terrible cholera outbreak in Dublin in 1832. The nuns were asked by a group of laypeople to take over the running of the Temple Street Children's Hospital in 1876. Three years later they set up the country's first Hospice for the Dying, Our Lady's in Harold's Cross, Dublin.  

To this day they are involved in prison ministry, education, assisting the homeless, helping immigrants, offering mental health support and fighting sex trafficking...

David Quinn also quotes Sam Coulter-Smith, a former Master of the Rotunda Hospital (and a Protestant) in praising the role of the voluntary hospitals in the Irish health-care system. Professor Coulter-Smith said: "Pretty much everything good that has come out of the health service in Ireland in the past 300 years, has come out of the voluntary service." He expands on the theme in a new book: Delivering the Future: Reflections of a Rotunda Master. The Rotunda [founded 1745] is the world's oldest maternity hospital in continuous operation, and traditionally has had a Protestant ethos. Several Church of Ireland clergy are on the board of governors.

According to David Quinn, Coulter-Smith thinks it is a good thing that the relocated NMH will still be a voluntary hospital because he believes these institutions are generally better than their HSE-run counterparts. He argues they are faster to react, less tied up in red tape, and can respond to emergencies better than the HSE system. 

Indeed, in Part C above I quoted Health Minister Stephen Donnelly (Fianna Fail) saying that "nobody is trying to use a compulsory purchase order on the Rotunda or the Coombe, which operate on land the State doesn’t own." But will that last, if and when, Sinn Fein comes to power?? [See also NOTE 4 above]

Leo Varadkar, the Sisters of Charity and the National Maternity Hospital

 

Anti-Clerical Hysteria and the National Maternity Hospital

I have three previous articles that relate to this topic: Sister Stanislaus Kennedy and False Allegations against The Sisters of Charity [1];  Sister Stanislaus Kennedy, the Sisters of Charity and the National Maternity Hospital [2] and  Kevin Myers and the Age of De Valera and McQuaid  The latter article doesn't mention the National Maternity Hospital (NMH) as such but concerns then Taoiseach (Prime Minister) Leo Varadkar in 2017 libelling journalist Kevin Myers as an anti-Semite. Kevin Myers is a long-standing supporter of Israel, Varadkar MUST have known that the claim was false but he choose to put himself at the head of a Twitter mob that was targeting Myers at the time. His recent antics concerning the NMH have a similar rationale - the use of media-created public hysteria for political advantage! ..

(A) Background

According to its website the National Maternity Hospital (NMH) situated at Holles St, Merrion Square, Dublin "was established through charitable donations in 1894 and, in 1903 the NMH became a Corporation on receipt of its Charter from the Crown. The legal status of the NMH emanates from the Charter and subsequent legislation and in that respect is along the same lines as the other two major Dublin maternity hospitals." [These are the Rotunda Hospital founded in 1745 and The Coombe in 1826 - all three founded during the period of British rule in Ireland and the latter two before Catholic Emancipation]

"Under the Charter, before its amendment in 1936, the control of NMH rested with the members of the Corporation known as Governors numbering up to 65 but the day to day operational control rested with the Master, an obstetrician and gynaecologist elected by the Governors.  

"NMH was rebuilt in 1930s and this opportunity was taken to amend the Charter by the National Maternity Hospital, Dublin (Charter Amendment) Act 1936 (the “Act”).  The Act which increased the number of Governors up to 100 established an Executive Committee to manage the Corporation's property and affairs. The Governors elect the ordinary members of the Executive Committee at each Annual General Meeting and elect the Master once every seven years." 

The extensive rebuilding of the NMH in the 1930s was largely financed by the (in)famous lottery called the Irish Hospital Sweepstakes but by the early years of this century the accommodation had become inadequate and a move to a much larger site was needed. In May 2013 it was announced that the hospital would relocate to the site of St. Vincent's University Hospital, Elm Park. A new facility would be built on the same campus as St Vincent's Hospital. 

Announcing the move, Fine Gael Minister for Health, James Reilly said the new facility could assure mothers and babies of the best quality care “in a state-of-the-art, custom-built, modern healthcare facility”. The Department said the relocation would address a recommendation from an independent KPMG report, compiled in 2008, which had recommended that maternity hospitals in Dublin should be located close to adult acute services.

The Master of NMH Holles St, Dr Rhona Mahony, said the existing building  was no longer fit for purpose, and the new facility was urgently needed. “The relocation of NMH will address this need and will achieve our strategic aim of close location with St Vincent’s University Hospital,” she said.

(B) 2017 Controversy re Alleged Role of Sisters of Charity in New NMH

St Vincent's Hospital was founded by Mother Mary Aikenhead, foundress of the  Religious Sisters of Charity, on St Stephens Green, Dublin in 1834. The hospital was subsequently moved to its current site in Elm Park in 1970, and in 1999 was renamed St. Vincent's University Hospital, to highlight its position as a principal teaching hospital of University College Dublin. Media reports in 2013 made no mention of any problems relating to the alleged role of the Sisters of Charity in the relocated National Maternity Hospital! The controversy began in April 2017 when a former Master of the NMH, Dr Peter Boylan, resigned from the board over the alleged influence of the Sisters on the new hospital. By 3 May 2017 a petition to oppose their - supposedly - becoming the sole owners of the relocated National Maternity Hospital had been signed by more than 100,000 people.

My article Sister Stanislaus Kennedy, the Sisters of Charity and the National Maternity Hospital [2] deals with this 2017 bogus controversy - with particular reference to the allegations of Dr Boylan. It should have been abundantly clear from the outset that the Sisters of Charity .would have no role whatsoever in the operation of the NMH. As a result of the thuggish abuse hurled at them they also speeded up their withdrawal from their management role in St Vincent's University hospital. This was an act of folly and cowardice by the nuns that empowered our anti-clerics and pointed towards the recent antics of Tanaiste (Deputy PM) Leo Varadkar!  

Leading "liberal" nun Sister Stanislaus Kennedy described the thuggish assault on the integrity of her colleagues as "Elder Abuse" NOT anti-Catholic or anti-clerical hatred. Her risible response only reinforces the view that the Sisters are incapable of defending themselves and can be abused and insulted with impunity!

(C) Will Sisters of Charity Impose Catholic Ethos on NMH (as per Dr Peter Boylan)?

(i) An article in the Sunday Times dated 1st August 2021 is entitled New NHM Head: Ownership Is Irrelevant and subtitled "Pat McCann says red line for government on who owns the hospital site is not important and that nuns will have no part in how services are operated"

Pat McCann, the newly elected head of the National Maternity Hospital board, has said he will not ask St Vincent’s Healthcare Group (SVHG) to sell the site to the state because it is “irrelevant” who owns it.

McCann believes that as long as the state owns the hospital building, the ownership of the land is not important. “Where you have a building on a campus like St Vincent’s, it’s very common in Ireland and the UK that there are common services such as egress and car parks. The easiest way to manage that is to have a ground lease,” he said. “The Intercontinental hotel in Dublin is built on ground owned by the RDS, but there is a ground lease and the RDS has no hand, act or part in how the hotel runs its business.”

The founder of the Dalata hotel group has arranged to meet James Menton, the chairman of SVHG, this week “to make sure we’re all aligned on what we’re doing”. He does not intend to meet the Religious Sisters of Charity, who own SVHG, as “they will have no hand, act or part” in the relocated National Maternity Hospital (NMH).....

McCann succeeds Nicholas Kearns, a former president of the High Court, who resigned from the NMH in July and later said the Dublin Bay South by-election “had made things more complicated”. During the campaign, the tanaiste Leo Varadkar said state ownership of the NMH was a “red line” issue for the government. McCann said he “absolutely” supports the current plan for the state to own the new building on a site it will lease for 149 years from SVHG.

“The thing to watch is if there are any restrictive covenants in that lease,” he said. “There is only one: that what goes on the site is the hospital. All [medical] procedures that are legally available in the state will be available there.”

(ii) Previous Head of NMH Board and Master of NMH reply to Dr Peter Boylan (2017)

(from article Sister Stanislaus Kennedy, the Sisters of Charity and the National Maternity Hospital [2] )

Nicholas Kearns (former President of the High Court) was Deputy Chair - in effect Head - of the National Maternity Hospital Board in 2017 and Dr Rhona Mahony was Master of the Hospital. They replied to an inflammatory text message from Dr Peter Boylan on 23 April 2017.  

"Both the Master and I have received and read your text sent to us at 13.47 today.  We are now asking for your immediate resignation from the Board of Holles St – both because of your public intervention to criticise and oppose the overwhelming majority decision of the Board taken in November last to approve the agreement reached with SVUH for the transfer of Holles St to Elm Park – a vote on which you abstained – and in addition because of the content of your text sent today. “It’s intimidatory tone is most regrettable.”

The National Maternity Hospital also issued a statement:

“Dr Boylan was a member of the NMH Board at all times during the six month period of mediation which resulted in the agreement of 21 November 2016 to co-locate the National Maternity Hospital with St Vincent’s University Hospital. The Board was kept fully briefed on all developments by the negotiating team during that period.

The decisive final meeting of the board overwhelmingly supported the agreement with 25 in favour, two abstentions (including Dr Boylan) and one vote against. [My emphasis] 

Thereafter the agreement was approved by government and planning permission was lodged. Last week, some five months after the agreement was approved, Boylan, without warning, consultation with or notification to the Board, its chair or the master of the hospital, went public in attacking the agreement. Board members have a duty of loyalty to the Board on which they serve and for this reason his resignation has been sought.

An Irish Times article dated  8 December 2018 headed Dr Rhona Mahony says Nuns Will Not Run New Maternity Hospital has the subheading "Holles Street master says Canon Law ‘Irrelevant’ to New Cacility at St Vincent’s campus"

The outgoing master of the National Maternity Hospital has said there will be no religious involvement at all in the proposed new maternity hospital on the St Vincent’s campus. Dr Rhona Mahony, who finishes her term in Holles Street on January 1st, [2019] said it was unfortunate that a lot of people thought nuns were going to be running the new facility...

“So let’s just be very clear. The Sisters of Charity will not be running this hospital. They never sought to run this hospital. They never sought to have any involvement in this hospital and they were never going to have any involvement in this hospital and they do not have any involvement in this hospital,” she told RTÉ’s Marian Finucane programme.

“Telling women stories that this hospital will be run by religious sisters is really damaging. It frightens women because they may believe that services for them will be restricted in terms of not providing termination of pregnancy, not providing contraception, when in fact the opposite is the case....

Dr Mahony said the Sisters of Charity, who own the St Vincent’s campus, have given the land for the new maternity hospital free of charge and are getting out of Irish healthcare. She said the hospital will be run by a lay company operating under Irish law and all services allowed under Irish law including abortion will be able to take place in the hospital. She stressed there will be no religious interference “whatsoever” and that canon law will be “irrelevant” to the ethos of the hospital.

According to the Wikipedia article on the National Maternity Hospital, Dr Rhona Mahony privately complained that "the feminists are going to unravel this fantastic hospital for women"! [1]

(iii) So what was Dr Peter Boylan's solution in 2017 - to avoid the alleged takeover by the Sisters of Charity of the relocated National Maternity Hospital? Well back then he proposed  a Compulsory Purchase Order of land belonging to Elm Park golf club (near St Vincent's Hospital) and linking the new NMH by tunnels etc to St Vincent's . But problems quickly emerged with that "solution". Health Minister Simon Harris pointed out that using a CPO would not be “the ideal solution by any means” because it would mean the project getting “caught up in some potential legal difficulty for a large number of years” In an Irish Independent article on 25 April 2017, Shane Phelan gave an illustration of this difficulty. He referred to the case of Thomas Reid who resisted efforts by IDA Ireland to compulsorily purchase his land in 2011. The matter went all the way to the Supreme Court where Mr. Reid won his case in 2015. 

My own comment at the time was that in the scenario suggested by Dr. Boylan, Elm Park Golf Club would be VERY likely to win a legal battle. They could point out that their land is “on the periphery” (as Dr Boylan states) and that for ideological reasons, the National Maternity Hospital had rejected the offer of a more central site from the Sisters of Charity!

More recently Dr Boylan "revealed on RTE Radio that former Health Minister Simon Harris had suggested to him that the NMH could be co-located at at Tallaght instead" - a proposal that would delay its construction by years and waste millions already spent .However it might all be worth-while to spite the Catholic Church!

(D) The Dishonesty of Leo Varadkar 

In an article in the Irish Independent on Nuns are Being ‘Bullied’ over Land for New National Maternity Hospital, says Prominent Priest, Sarah McDonald writes:

A well-known priest has said the Religious Sisters of Charity are being bullied in the row over the ownership of the land for the new National Maternity Hospital (NMH) at St Vincent’s Hospital. Fr Brendan Hoban, a co-founder of the Association of Catholic Priests which represents over 1,000 Irish priests, said “a sustained effort is being made to bully the Sisters of Charity into complying” with politicians’ demands over the valuable 29-acre site.

Criticising what he believes to be a populist anti-Catholic mood of politicians in the Dáil, the Co Mayo priest said he did not think the Sisters of Charity should ‘gift’ the site at Elm Park to the State but should instead sell the site to the State and “use the enormous proceeds to re-direct their own medical services, especially towards the poor.

In his weekly column for the Western People, Fr Hoban noted that when the nuns offered the site adjacent to St Vincent’s Hospital complex in Elm Park, the Government’s only reservation was that the new hospital would be able to deliver the full range of services open to it under the law....

Fr Hoban accused Tánaiste Leo Varadkar of throwing “the equivalent of a grenade” into the mix a few weeks ago when he indicated that ownership was still a problem and that any obstetric or gynaecological service that was legal in the State would have to be available in the new hospital.

Describing the Tánaiste’s intervention as “odd”, the retired parish priest noted that prior to Mr Varadkar’s comments, the only voice objecting to the agreement co-locating the new hospital in Elm Park was the former Master of the Holles Street, Dr Peter Boylan, whom he described as “a persistent Greek chorus of just one”.

He also questioned the reasons for Mr Varadkar’s intervention in light of the recent letter signed by 42 senior clinicians at the NMH, including the current master and three former masters, expressing concern that misinformation and misunderstanding would delay “a vital project to create a world-class maternity hospital for the women and babies of Ireland”. They believe there will be no restriction on treatments and no subservience to religious control in the new hospital.

Suggesting that the nuns are collateral damage of Mr Varadkar’s agenda, Fr Hoban said there seemed to be only one solution. “Let the Sisters of Charity sell the site of the hospital to the state” and let Mr Varadkar explain the consequent loss of millions of euros, he said.

Unfortunately I think it's too late for the solution suggested by Fr Hoban. However the co-leader of the Social Democrats Roisin Shortall has provided a plausible explanation for Leo Varadkar's "odd" decision to throw "the equivalent of a grenade" into the NMH relocation process:

She asked him: “When precisely did you become seriously concerned about the proposed new National Maternity Hospital? In the Dáil last week you told us there were fundamental problems with two aspects of the deal, ownership, and governance. I've been telling you exactly that for the past four years. I'm quite curious about when you finally saw the light.”...

“Work started on the legal framework in 2017, but four years later, there's still no sign of it. You complained bitterly about the proposed 99-year lease, saying it wasn't satisfactory, and that we should own the site, but it was your Government that proposed a lease in the first place.”

Ms Shortall added: “So I'm curious, Tánaiste, as to what prompted you to get to your feet in this House last week to express serious concern. Was there something significant about the timing? I notice it’s an issue that voters in Dublin Bay South care deeply about. Perhaps their concern has been a catalyst for some long overdue action.”

And THAT is why 42 senior clinicians at the NMH, including the current master and three former masters, expressed concern that misinformation and misunderstanding would delay “a vital project to create a world-class maternity hospital for the women and babies of Ireland”. Except Leo Varadkar is not misinformed nor does he misunderstand. Political advantage is far more important for him than progressing the building of  a new National Maternity Hospital!

(E) The Folly of the Sisters of Charity

Back in 2017 I made three correct predictions regarding the future of this controversy - in my article Sister Stanislaus Kennedy, the Sisters of Charity and the National Maternity Hospital [2]. Well they were all the related to the same prediction really!

(i) "If the Sisters of Charity manage to handle the present crisis properly, namely by refusing to make concessions in the face of hysterical attacks, then it could discourage such attacks in future. And that will benefit lots of people apart from clergy or religious."

In that respect I was pleased to read the following in Valerie Hanley’s article in The Mail on Sunday on 23 April [2017]:

A source revealed: ‘The nuns are adamant that they have fulfilled all their obligations under the redress board. When something is repeated enough it becomes fact. There has been an awful lot of vitriol loaded on the nuns. There has been a nonsense argument going on all week and there is no basis for some of what has been said. Some of what has been said is prejudice for things that happened historically. It’s band-wagonism and politicians are running after it. The politicians should be doing better.

The nuns are annoyed and they consider some of the comments that have been made as being defamatory. I think their attitude now is ‘let the State go off and build their hospital on their own land’. [My Emphasis]

That’s all very well and I couldn’t agree more BUT the Sister’s comment is being made anonymously. My own fear is that – under pressure – the Sisters of Charity will cave in and authorise an amendment to the National Maternity Hospital Agreement approved in November 2016. In that case, their critics will rejoice and declare themselves victorious and vindicated. In previous comments I have detailed how the Sisters of MERCY were savaged because of their constant attempts to ingratiate themselves with people who hated them. I also have an article on the subject here: Sisters of Mercy

I hope that the Sisters of Charity now understand the dangers of Appeasement – defined by one British newspaper in 1939 as “A clever plan of selling off your friends in order to buy off your enemies”. (For the Sisters of Mercy, that worked the same way it did for Neville Chamberlain!)

But of course my hopes were vain and the nuns caved in!

(ii) I wrote in 2017 about  the repeated claims by politicians and journalists that the Sisters of Charity had failed to pay the balance of €3 million “compensation” that they “owed” the State. Health Minister Simon Harris said that the two matters should be considered separately. What two matters? On 23 April [2017] the Mail on Sunday (journalist Valerie Hanley) reported:

The Department of Education has confirmed to the Mail on Sunday that that the nuns’ legal costs for the Ryan Commission will be offset against the €3 million of payments for abuse victims that are outstanding. While these costs have not been finalised, media reports that were based on briefing documents have estimated them at €5 million, a sum that would more than wipe out the outstanding bill that they owe.

Crucially, the department has confirmed that the reason for the delay in resolving the problem is nothing to do with the nuns, but is down to its own officials figuring out the final costs of the congregation’s legal representation at the Ryan Commission…..

Yet, as Ms. Hanley pointed out, the claim that the Sisters owed €3 million, had been repeatedly cited by politicians from Fianna Fail, The Greens, Labour and the Social Democrats and the media as justification for outraged comments about the agreement brokered by Kieran Mulvey. Did the Minister for Health not liaise with his Education colleague? Or did he decide to sidestep the issue – on the basis that discretion is the better part of valour when faced with anti-clerical hysteria?

Back in 2017 I wondered what would have been the attitude of Jews if they had been attacked in similar fashion? Suppose that a Jewish group had offered to donate land for a hospital under precisely the same conditions as those agreed in November 2016 between Holles St and St Vincents. Suppose that the media and politicians erupted with hate-filled lies – including claims that the Jewish group committed “atrocities” against children, “experimented on [a child] for vaccine trials” and owed the State €3 million. Suppose that the Government Ministers responsible failed to defend the Jewish group against the lies and it was left up to a Daily Mail journalist to find out – via a Freedom of Information request – that the Jewish group owed nothing and had actually overpaid!

I wrote that this would never happen because the Jewish group would immediately defend its slandered members and take legal action against those responsible. Anti-Semites know this and are very mindful of the risks they would be facing. So Anti-Semites have to be very careful – but NOT anti-clerics and in particular not anti-clerics who tell lies about nuns. The leaders of female religious congregations have always preferred the Appeasement approach. This has worked for them in much the same way it did for Neville Chamberlain in the 1930s i.e. it encourages further attacks from people who recognise moral cowardice when they see it. 

Thus Leo Varadkar's recent attempt to win votes in the Dublin Bay South by-election by bullying supine nuns!

(iii) An article in the Irish Medical Times “A Complicated Delivery” by editor Dara Gantly on 10 May 2017 concluded as follows:

…What is of further interest now is that the Minister [for Health] wants to begin a “broader conversation” about the structure of our health service, including the role of voluntary hospitals and the interest religious congregations have in them. This has been happening in education (slowly mind), so we should not be too surprised to see it start in Health.

“That is a good thing and I want to separately put in place a process to facilitate that broader conversation which is long overdue and which will, rightfully, take some time,” Minister Harris has noted. ..

I wrote in 2017 "And what will be the nature of this conversation IF Minister Harris sees that the Sisters of Charity and the Church will not stand up for themselves but will attempt to conciliate the mob? When politicians and the media claimed that the Sisters owed €3 million in “compensation”, it was not the Minister for Health, but a Daily Mail journalist who queried the Department of Education and discovered that the Sisters owed nothing and in fact had over-paid! 

"If the Sisters of Charity attempt to appease the mob in relation to the National Maternity Hospital, then reason and logic will NOT feature in the future “broader conversation” referred to by Simon Harris!"

And so it has turned out!

The Sisters Surrender to the Secular Power!

On 31 May 2017 Sr Mary Christian, Congregational Leader of the Religious Sisters of Charity issued a Statement confirming that the Sisters were withdrawing from any involvement in St Vincent's Hospital that they had founded in 1834 - and also confirming the abandonment of the hospital's Catholic ethos:

The Religious Sisters of Charity will end our involvement in St Vincent’s Healthcare Group and will not be involved in the ownership or management of the new National Maternity Hospital.....

Upon completion of this proposed transaction, the requirement set out in the SVHG Constitution, to conduct and maintain the SVHG facilities in accordance with The Religious Sisters of Charity Health Service Philosophy and Ethical Code, will be amended and replaced to reflect compliance with national and international best practice guidelines on medical ethics and the laws of the Republic of Ireland.

The SVHG Board, management and staff will continue to provide acute healthcare services that foster Mary Aikenhead’s core values of dignity, compassion, justice, quality and advocacy....

Nobody was fooled by this pious invocation of the name of their foundress. It was clear that they were surrendering to the pressure (and blatant lies) of a secular mob. Their cowardice ensured that the attacks on them would continue - even to the present day!  

(F) CONCLUSION:

In 2017 I referred to an editorial in the Irish Medical Times (10 May)  entitled  “Minister Build That Hospital” subtitle Sorry episode has revealed much that is ugly about modern Ireland and quoting Doctor Ruairi Hanley

….Regrettably, there is another factor in this dispute that has taken us beyond mere clinical disagreement. Over the past month, a baying liberal cyber mob has entered the fray and all sense of perspective has been lost. Please note, I am not referring here to those colleagues who have genuine concerns about this project. As already stated, I disagree with these people, but I respect their view.

No, the group that I find beyond parody are the extreme liberal, Catholic-hating online brigade who appear to think that a giant abortion clinic is the most important priority for South Dublin. I suspect some of these people will not be satisfied until a few nuns are imprisoned and the Catholic Church is effectively eradicated from any involvement in Irish society.

Liberal outrage

The vicious, obnoxious tone of some members of this new mob is truly appalling. They have turned on Dr Rhona Mahony, an outstanding and dedicated obstetrician who is a role model for Irish women. But, let’s be honest, the cool gang could not care less about the facts. Once they heard mention of nuns the red mist descended and it was then we moved to a classic liberal outrage contest.

For these individuals, online perception is always more important than clinical outcome. In their world it is apparently acceptable for this project to be sabotaged, with negative consequences for women and children, so long as a few elderly nuns get a good cyber-kicking.

Naturally, if the mob gets their way the hospital will be delayed at a cost of tens of millions of euro to the taxpayer. In my opinion, this would undoubtedly be the most expensive act of online ‘virtue signalling’ in human history. [RC My emphasis]

As an aside, I make no apologies for pointing out that the Catholic Church has done enormous good work in healthcare for the poorest in society over the past century, even if I am one of the only doctors in Ireland willing to say this publicly. [RC My emphasis]….. 

Indeed Doctor Doctor Ruairi Hanley was "one of the only doctors in Ireland willing to say this publicly." This was an Editorial in the highly prestigious Irish Medical Times written about a controversial topic and during the height of the controversy. So how many Comments did it attract? Precisely one - from my NON medical self! [2]

Why were other doctors so reluctant to stick their necks out? I suspect that it was only partly fear of the "baying liberal mob" that Dr Hanley refers to. There is also the fact that the Sisters of Charity refused to defend themselves and abased itself before said mob - as Irish nuns have been doing for the past quarter century! [3]  Leo Varadkar felt free to insult them again in order to please anti-clerical voters in the recent Dublin Bay South by-election. He knew there would be no comeback from the nuns - least of all from Sr Stanislaus Kennedy whose "progressive" reputation COULD have enabled her to embarrass Varadkar, had she not opted to stay silent! 

NOTES:

[1] Wikipedia refer to a Sunday Times article dated 23 April 2017  "Bishop says New Hospital Must Obey the Church", most of which is behind a paywall.

[2] This is the text of my Comment on the Irish Medical Times Editorial dated 10 May 2017

Rory Connor

24th May 2017 at 11:54 pm

I couldn’t agree more.

I have a number of comments on this issue on the Association of Catholic Priests website, (topic “Catholic Ethos and Other Mysteries”) the latest one being number 52 which might serve as a summary

http://www.associationofcatholicpriests.ie/2017/05/catholic-ethos-and-other-mysteries/

Sadly the ACP have merged 2 separate although related discussions, so you have to search for the Maternity Hospital one. However it definitely IS worth-while! My own other comments are numbers 20, 25 and 32.

[3] See blog article The Decadence of the Sisters of Mercy and website article The Sisters of Mercy that  - despite its title - also describes the antics of Presentation Sister Elizabeth Maxwell and Ursuline Sister Marianne O'Connor, both former Heads of the Conference of Religious in Ireland. There is something especially grotesque about the antics of the leaders of FEMALE Religious Congregations (although anyone who suspects me of Misogyny should try reading Archbishop Diarmuid Martin, the Simpsons and our Insect Overlords )

Sister Stanislaus Kennedy, the Sisters of Charity and the National Maternity Hospital [2]

Attack on Sisters is "Elder Abuse"

The hysteria about the Sisters of Charity and the National Maternity Hospital is underway again. Predictably the Sisters capitulation to an anti-clerical mob in May 2017 failed to satisfy said mob and they are having another go. I posted comments regarding the controversy on two articles on the Association of Catholic Priests website last year and this seems a good time to reproduce them.
["Catholic Ethos and Other Mysteries" AND "The New National Maternity Hospital and The Religious Sisters of Charity" ]

Much of what I had to say was a response to a statement by Fr Gabriel Daly OSA (Order of St Augustine) whose attitude to the attacks on the Sisters of Charity was that the critics were "wise and persuasive" and also "temperate and convincing". 

In the present crisis the bishops, together with the Sisters of Charity, had little to say on what was happening. Most of them may understandably have felt that the least said the soonest mended. There was, however, a surprisingly belligerent atmosphere among the people interviewed by the media.  The prevailing opinion among those interviewed was that under no circumstances should the new hospital be handed over to a religious body like the Sisters of Charity, because of its alleged failures in the past. Those with more considered reasons feared that there might be interference with medical decisions on religious grounds.  This was a fair point, usually made by professionals like Dr. Peter Boylan, who had the grace to argue temperately and convincingly.  I find myself convinced by his wise and persuasive arguments.

In Father Daly's view the REAL problem is traditionalists in the Catholic Church who are engaged in "a relentless and heavy-handed creation of laws and the heartless prescriptions for their infringement" And the difference between "Traditionalists" and Reformers": 
Traditionalists are concerned about law, control, discipline and punishment.  Infringements against marital law, for example, are punished by canon law by forbidding the offenders to receive Holy Communion.   The Gospel is ignored and there is no mention of mercy or forgiveness as a grace.  ‘Reformers’, on the other hand, following Pope Francis, prefer to dwell on God’s mercy.  This distinction is vitally important for attitudes towards the question of ownership and ethos of hospitals and schools....

 Revelation has little to say about sex; and nothing at all about reproduction.  It is time for Catholics to think theologically about these matters rather than allowing traditionalists away with imposing their own narrow and authoritarian views in the name of church teaching.

"Black Hats" and "White Hats" in the Church
Father Daly states: The plain fact is that there are two very different parties whose values seriously conflict in their view of their church. One group claims that the church is charged with legislating for the whole body and is greatly concerned with how these rules are carried out, with suitable punishments for those who offend.  The other, following the example of the present pope, Francis, prefers to emphasise mercy, understanding and forgiveness. It believes in the need for constant reform.  These two views stem from two very different attitudes to God, Jesus, the church and the world.

When we speak of the relationship between church and state, we are not speaking about abstractions.  Whatever about the state, it matters which party in the church is conducting the matter in dispute.  The fear of interference by the church is a live possibility in a maternal hospital – a point that takes us back to Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae and is closely relevant to the present dispute.

HOWEVER there was no sign of "mercy, understanding and forgiveness" in the behaviour of the politicians, journalists and media mob that denounced the Sisters of Charity. In fact their behaviour quite closely resembled that of the Traditionalists condemned by Father Daly - relentless, heavy-handed,  heartless, narrow, authoritarian, emphasis on " law, control, discipline, punishment".  In addition one specific allegation - that the Sisters "owed" €3 million to the State sounds much more like a bare-faced lie than even 'sincere' bigotry. Yet Father Daly lets these people off rather lightly. His heart-felt criticisms are directed at the nuns and at the Hierarchy!

"Catholic Ethos and Other Mysteries" - Fr Gabriel Daly and the National Maternity Hospital 

[ For ease of reading, I have renumbered Comments made by myself and others]

[1] Padraig McCarthy
May 9th, 2017 at 9:17 pm
I know nothing about the running of a hospital, nor about the complexities of getting two hospitals working in close cooperation. I do know that when I was in that parish (Westland Row) in the 1970s, and we used to be called at any time of day or night to a child whose life was in danger, even then there was talk of the difficulties of the present premises of the National Maternity Hospital.

I do not understand why the decision was made to give ownership of the new Maternity Hospital to the St Vincent’s Hospital Group, even when the land belongs to them. Perhaps there are practicalities of ensuring smooth administration of the conjoined hospitals, or perhaps, as some suggest, there are some financial considerations which make it necessary.

In the present dispute, both the National Maternity Hospital (NMH) and the St Vincent’s Hospital Group (SVHG) have given categorical assurances that the new maternity hospital will be clinically independent to perform any procedure which is permitted in law. I do not know whether that has been copper-fastened in law at this stage. It seems clear, however, that if that independence were not respected in any way, there would then be strong grounds for serious action against SVHG.

In the light of that, it seems to me that the fears of Dr Peter Boylan and others are unfounded. Gabriel finds himself “convinced by his wise and persuasive arguments.” I find myself nowhere near convinced. Dr Boylan seems to speak more from his fears than from clear argument. He clearly cannot bring himself to trust the judgment of the rest of the board of the NMH. I cannot say at this stage whether his fears will turn out to be justified; if that proves to be the case, there will be an almighty row. Gabriel says that “interference by the church is a live possibility in a maternal hospital.” Is it “interference” when the Sisters are faithful to their medical ethics in such matters, but not interference when those same ethics led them and other congregations to fill “this serious gap”, as Gabriel describes it?

The fears of Dr Boylan and others seem to arise from strong resentment against the Sisters of Charity, as Gabriel says, pointing to how the sisters are being “execrated in such hostile and sometimes vitriolic terms.” I suspect that this is heightened by the proximity of the debate on abortion. As reported in the media, it seems at times almost a frenzy. A petition with 100,000 signatures against ownership of the new NMH by SVHG sound impressive. The population stood at 4,761,865 in April 2016, so that petition represents 2.1% of the population, but they are well organised. If someone versed in these matters were to initiate a petition in support of the present proposals, I wonder could it surpass it?

There is something seriously contradictory if we are about to invest 1 billion Euro in a new Children’s Hospital, and at the same time to invest €300 million in a hospital which will include in its programme of “services” the termination of the lives of unborn children. There are better ways. The recommendations of the Citizens’ Assembly lack rationality and leave serious questions. No person has an abortion just for the sake of having an abortion: there are always other reasons. If those reasons are non-medical, for example “socio-economic”, as is the case in a large majority of abortions elsewhere, then those same reasons need to be addressed, rather than apply a medical “solution” to a non-medical problem. If the reasons are medical, then it is quite clear that the mother may always receive whatever treatment is necessary to save her, even if, sadly, it is not possible to save the child.
There is an internal anomaly in Gabriel’s essay. He writes of “traditionalists”, with whom “the Gospel is ignored and there is no mention of mercy or forgiveness as a grace.” And yet he writes in relation to the Mother and Child Scheme that it was “opposed, perhaps understandably, by the medical profession, and unforgivably by the Catholic Church.” The church has indeed many failings; but why should any of these be unforgivable?


[2] Rory Connor
May 13th, 2017 at 5:25 pm

I find Fr Gabriel Daly’s arguments very strange and I can’t see the relevance of many of them so I will concentrate on one. Fr Daly finds himself convinced by the “wise and persuasive arguments” of Dr. Peter Boylan who feared that there might be interference with medical decisions on religious grounds. In summary I wonder why he is convinced by Dr. Boylan but not by Master of the National Maternity Hospital Dr Rhona Mahony, deputy chairman Nicholas Kearns, or the overwhelming majority of the board members (25 out of 28) who approved the agreement brokered by Kieran Mulvey in November last year?

I suppose the argument that Fr Daly agrees with is the one contained in the text message sent to Dr Mahony and (former president of the High Court) Mr Kearns on 23 April: [Irish Daily Mail, 26 April 2017]
I’m sorry it’s come to this but I did try to warn you. The way out for both of you is to make it clear that you were misled by SVHG [St Vincent’s Hospital Group]. You accepted their bona fides and assurances and were effectively lied to. Both you and the minister are inextricable linked in this and you’ll either sink or swim together.

The way to get the hospital is to insist on CPO of Elm Park golf club land on periphery and establish links to via tunnels/corridors. Minimal design alterations needed.

Does Fr Daly consider these to be “wise and persuasive arguments” or “temperate”? Is he really surprised by the immediate response Dr Boylan received from Mr. Kearns that included the following:
”Both the Master and I have received and read your text sent to us at 13.47 today.

“We are now asking for your immediate resignation from the Board of Holles St – both because of your public intervention to criticise and oppose the overwhelming majority decision of the Board taken in November last to approve the agreement reached with SVUH for the transfer of Holles St to Elm Park – a vote on which you abstained – and in addition because of the content of your text sent today.

“It’s intimidatory tone is most regrettable.” ……

Would Father Daly consider that an “intemperate” response to a “wise and persuasive argument” from Dr. Boylan?

The National Maternity Hospital also issued a statement .
“Dr Boylan was a member of the NMH Board at all times during the six month period of mediation which resulted in the agreement of 21 November 2016 to co-locate the National Maternity Hospital with St Vincent’s University Hospital. The Board was kept fully briefed on all developments by the negotiating team during that period,” the hospital said in the statement.

The decisive final meeting of the board overwhelmingly supported the agreement with 25 in favour, two abstentions (including Dr Boylan) and one vote against. [My emphasis] 

Thereafter the agreement was approved by government and planning permission was lodged.Last week, some five months after the agreement was approved, Boylan, without warning, consultation with or notification to the Board, its chair or the master of the hospital, went public in attacking the agreement. Board members have a duty of loyalty to the Board on which they serve and for this reason his resignation has been sought.

I see that Dr.Boylan’s proposed solution is a Compulsory Purchase Order of land belonging to Elm Park golf club. So what’s wrong with a CPO? Well Health Minister Simon Harris has pointed out that using a CPO would not have been “the ideal solution by any means” because it would have meant the project getting “caught up in some potential legal difficulty for a large number of years.” Shane Phelan in the Irish Independent on 25 April gave an illustration of this difficulty. One just has to look at the case of Thomas Reid who resisted efforts by IDA Ireland to compulsorily purchase his land in 2011. The matter went all the way to the Supreme Court where Mr. Reid won his case in 2015. In the scenario suggested by Dr. Boylan, Elm Park Golf Club would be VERY likely to win a legal battle. They could point out that their land is “on the periphery” (as Dr Boylan states) and that for ideological reasons, the National Maternity Hospital had rejected the offer of a more central site from the Sisters of Charity!

FINALLY I see that Dr Boylan seems to accept that a CPO of the Sisters of Charity land is not possible. Veteran negotiator Kieran Mulvey said (in the Mail on Sunday 30 April) that it was not possible for the nuns to give up ownership of St Vincent’s because of intertwined loans. He said St Vincent’s Healthcare Group had large borrowings connected to the hospital site and ‘the idea that you can just separate a piece of land is just not legally possible at the moment… There are large borrowings by the St Vincent Healthcare Group which will have to be met.’

Unfortunately Dr. Boylan’s proposed solution appears to involve equal – if not greater – legal difficulties and delays!


[3] Rory Connor
May 15th, 2017 at 7:35 pm
There seems to be two separate – although related discussions – going on here, one of which is the general issue of a “Catholic Ethos”. I believe that the latter issue is peripheral; it’s being used by anti-clerics as an excuse to launch savage attacks on the Sisters of Charity and I suspect that the rational and respectful discussion between Kevin and Joe etc is beside the point!

I see the main issue as that stated in the recent statement by the ACP in the article entitled “National Maternity Hospital”
..In fact, if some of the things being said publicly about nuns today were being said about any other minority group, they would be clearly seen as highly inflammatory and viewed as being in violation of the laws against discrimination...

Specifically I suggest that they are in violation of the Prohibition against Incitement to Hatred Act 1989 which makes it an offence to publish or broadcast material that is threatening, abusive or insulting and is intended, or is likely, to stir up hatred. (This includes hatred directed against a group of persons on the basis of their religion.)

I recall media articles relating to the controversy in which people claimed they were experimented on for vaccine trials while in a Mother and Baby Home, or subjected to “atrocities”. And a letter in which a lady claimed that the words “nuns” and “maternity hospital” in the same sentence are enough to make an Irish female shudder. The latter comment is rather strange because according to a (very hostile) article in the Irish Times last year (28 April 2016)
http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/catholic-church-s-influence-over-irish-hospital-medicine-persists-1.2626856
..The running of the Irish health service was largely undertaken by religious orders in the past. Orders of nuns were responsible for the setting up of many of Ireland’s hospitals in the 19th and 20th centuries…

Indeed St Vincent’s Hospital was founded by Mother Mary Aikenhead foundress of the Sisters of Charity and established at St Stephen’s Green in 1834 to care for the sick poor. Did the Sisters prevent the State from establishing a secular equivalent in pre-Famine Ireland?

One extraordinary feature was the repeated claims by politicians and journalists that the Sisters of Charity had failed to pay the balance of €3 million “compensation” that they “owed” the State. Health Minister Simon Harris said that the two matters should be considered separately. What two matters? On 23 April [2017] the Mail on Sunday (journalist Valerie Hanley) reported:

“The Department of Education has confirmed to the MoS that that the nuns’ legal costs for the Ryan Commission will be offset against the €3 million of payments for abuse victims that are outstanding. While these costs have not been finalised, media reports that were based on briefing documents have estimated them at €5 million, a sum that would more than wipe out the outstanding bill that they owe.

Crucially, the department has confirmed that the reason for the delay in resolving the problem is nothing to do with the nuns, but is down to its own officials figuring out the final costs of the congregation’s legal representation at the Ryan Commission…..”

Yet, as Ms. Hanley pointed out, the claim that the Sisters owed €3 million, had been repeatedly cited by politicians from Fianna Fail, The Greens, Labour and the Social Democrats and the media as justification for outraged comments about the agreement brokered by Kieran Mulvey. Did the Minister for Health not liaise with his Education colleague? Or did he decide to sidestep the issue – on the basis that discretion is the better part of valour when faced with anti-clerical hysteria?


[4] Kevin Walters
May 16th, 2017 at 8:11 am
Reply to Rory Connor 
Thank you Roy for your comment, the article by Gabriel incorporates an attack on the moral authority of the church’s teachings, especially Humanae Vitae as it is sited six times often disparagingly.

I realize that you want to focus on injustice in regards to the Nuns but that same injustice is undermining their ethical belief in the Churches teaching in regards to the sacredness of human life, from conception to death, which many have given their lives in service to.
I believe that there is plenty of space on this web page to search for the Truth of “related discussions”

kevin your brother
In Christ

[5] Rory Connor
May 18th, 2017 at 8:02 pm
Reply to Kevin 
I tend to agree with you regarding Humanae Vitae. Also some anti-clerics who were alienated from the Catholic Church because of the encyclical, probably see it as justification for ANY kind of hate-filled attack on clergy or nuns. “Ecrasez l’infame” and all that.

However the CURRENT issue is the controversy about the National Maternity Hospital and it is due to come to a head again at the end of this month – after the cooling-off period suggested by the Minister for Health. I suspect the ONLY result of the “cooling-off” is that journalists and politicians will no longer repeat the lie about the Sisters “owing” €3 million to the State. However this won’t be because of a new-found devotion to the truth but because THAT particular lie is no longer sustainable! Otherwise it will be back to business as usual and the Church needs to prepare itself.

I do indeed want to “focus on injustice in regards to nuns” but as I stated in a previous discussion, this has major implications for the laity – and for teachers most of all. See in particular comment # 4 in “The Oblates, the Minister and the Redress Board”

If the Sisters of Charity manage to handle the present crisis properly, namely by refusing to make concessions in the face of hysterical attacks, then it could discourage such attacks in future. And that will benefit lots of people apart from clergy or religious.

In that respect I was pleased to read the following in Valerie Hanley’s article in The Mail on Sunday on 23 April [2017]:
A source revealed: ‘The nuns are adamant that they have fulfilled all their obligations under the redress board. When something is repeated enough it becomes fact. There has been an awful lot of vitriol loaded on the nuns. There has been a nonsense argument going on all week and there is no basis for some of what has been said. Some of what has been said is prejudice for things that happened historically. It’s band-wagonism and politicians are running after it. The politicians should be doing better.

The nuns are annoyed and they consider some of the comments that have been made as being defamatory. I think their attitude now is ‘let the State go off and build their hospital on their own land’. [My Emphasis]

That’s all very well and I couldn’t agree more BUT the Sister’s comment is being made anonymously. My own fear is that – under pressure – the Sisters of Charity will cave in and authorise an amendment to the National Maternity Hospital Agreement approved in November 2016. In that case, their critics will rejoice and declare themselves victorious and vindicated. In previous comments I have detailed how the Sisters of MERCY were savaged because of their constant attempts to ingratiate themselves with people who hated them. I also have an article on the subject here:
Sisters of Mercy

I hope that the Sisters of Charity now understand the dangers of Appeasement – defined by one British newspaper in 1939 as “A clever plan of selling off your friends in order to buy off your enemies”.
(For the Sisters of Mercy, that worked the same way it did for Neville Chamberlain!)

[6]   Eddie Finnegan
May 19th, 2017 at 3:16 pm
The Leadership [of the Association of Catholic Priests]  very balanced statement on ‘The National Maternity Hospital’ on 10 May unfortunately diverted any comments to this discussion thread, thereby losing the importance of the points it made in four of its five paragraphs. Only Pádraig McCarthy referred to the statement [1] above, though Rory Connor@[5] once again returned to the wider question at greater length.

The statement’s Paragraphs 2&3 rightly pointed out: “In the current debate . . . . we consider some of the language and expressions being used about the Sisters, and indeed nuns in general, both in the media and by some public representatives, to be both distasteful and unfair.

“In fact, if some of the things being said publicly about nuns today were being said about any other minority group, they would be clearly seen as highly inflammatory and viewed as being in violation of the laws against discrimination.”

The excellent letter from Sr Una Agnew SSL in today’s Irish Times [‘Time to reject caricatured view of nuns’] deserves to be reproduced within this discussion on the ACP forum. http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/time-to-reject-caricatured-view-of-nuns-1.3088148

As Sr Una puts it: “The derision with which the word ‘nun’ has been spoken on Irish television has cut to the heart of many who have put their lives on the line for values that are foundational to human flourishing . . . It is not nun-like to blow one’s own trumpet, yet no one is likely to do it for us, though many in high places have reason to be grateful.”


[7] Rory Connor
May 23rd, 2017 at 11:44 pm
Reply to Eddie 
I agree it’s a pity that the ACP Leadership diverted discussion on their National Maternity Hospital (NMH) statement to this thread. The “cooling-off” period called for by Health Minister Simon Harris, will come to an end shortly and we will probably face another barrage of hate-filled rhetoric directed at the Church and the Sisters of Charity. The discussion re Humanae Vitae is of limited relevance in this context.

Anyway I have just re-located Breda O’Brien’s article in the Irish Times regarding the abuse being hurled at the Sisters of Charity. Dated 6 May, the heading is “Mob Mentality Over Religious Orders Has Gone Too Far”. She quotes Professor Roy Greenslade regarding the way the McCann parents were treated after the disappearance of their daughter Madelaine (and the current hysteria is similar):
"It was like being in front of a mob – and you realized there is no wisdom in the mob. And it’s been terrible since”.

Ms O’Brien compares the atmosphere to that which led to the false conviction for rape of (former Sister of Mercy) Nora Wall who was accused of holding down a 12 year old girl so that the equally innocent Paul (Pablo) McCabe could rape her. She reminds us that both were convicted in the immediate aftermath of RTE’s broadcast of Mary Raftery’s “States of Fear” programmes in 1999. She could well have added that both were accused shortly after the broadcast by RTE of the “Dear Daughter” programme in 1996.

Nora Wall was the first woman in the State to be convicted of rape, the first person to receive a life sentence for rape, the first to be convicted of evidence given after “recovered memory”. These are “firsts” but there is also an “only”. There were TWO rape allegations against Wall and McCabe, one supposedly having occurred on the “victim’s” 12th birthday. Pablo McCabe was a homeless man but by an extra-ordinary chance there WAS an official record of where he was on that that particular day – and it was nowhere near the site of the “rape”. No problem for the jury. They acquitted the two defendants of that rape but convicted them of the second one for which no specific date was given! I think I can safely state that this is the ONLY time in the history of the State in which such an event has occurred – or will ever occur. An accused person is supposed to be “innocent until proven guilty” and if an accuser tells an obvious lie, then that should be the end for the prosecution. In fact the Prosecution were able to overcome that obstacle because Nora Wall had been a nun and anti-clerical hysteria trumped every rational consideration!

Anti-clerical hysteria continues to triumph over reason and morality in “liberal” secular Ireland. Breda O’Brien also refers to RTE’s libeling of Fr Kevin Reynolds in May 2011 by accusing him of impregnating and abandoning a young Kenyan woman. Fr Reynolds offered to take a DNA test but RTE ignored the offer and went ahead with the broadcast anyway – thus exposing themselves to a huge libel payout. Note that a NORMAL conman (i.e. one motivated by the desire for money or fame) would have seen the alarm signals and backed out at that stage but people motivated by ideological hatred (in the form of anti-clericalism) behave differently.

Am I being too strident? Well an earlier Irish Times article by Breda O’Brien regarding Judge Harding Clark’s report on the Symphysiotomy “scandal” is also relevant here. How many people still recall this fake scandal that occupied media headlines for a mere 17 years – prior to the publication of the judge’s report in November 2016?
http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/breda-o-brien-why-did-so-many-women-say-they-had-symphysiotomies-1.2882141
Why Did So Many Women Say They Had Symphysiotomies?
Sensationalist consensus may overlook one third of applicants who never had procedure.
……But medical experts proved that a third of those who made applications, including some very vociferous and active campaigners, had never had the procedure at all.

Other applicants claimed to have had it in hospitals that were not yet built, or to have had it carried out by doctors who were not there, and “in several statements the applicant claimed being held down by nuns (in hospitals where there were no nuns) while she was being ‘assaulted’.”…..

Again this has an obvious link to the false allegations against Nora Wall and Pablo McCabe. It also helps to explain the thuggish rhetoric being directed at the Sisters of Charity today.

[8] Rory Connor
May 25th, 2017 at 12:13 pm
I see there are two articles in the Irish Medical Times on the National Maternity Hospital controversy – both significant in their own way and I commented on the one by Doctor Ruairi Hanley “Minister Build That Hospital”. http://www.imt.ie/opinion/minister-build-that-hospital-10-05-2017/#comment-15258

You have to register (although there is no charge) so I will quote what I see as the most important section:
….Regrettably, there is another factor in this dispute that has taken us beyond mere clinical disagreement. Over the past month, a baying liberal cyber mob has entered the fray and all sense of perspective has been lost. Please note, I am not referring here to those colleagues who have genuine concerns about this project. As already stated, I disagree with these people, but I respect their view.

No, the group that I find beyond parody are the extreme liberal, Catholic-hating online brigade who appear to think that a giant abortion clinic is the most important priority for South Dublin. I suspect some of these people will not be satisfied until a few nuns are imprisoned and the Catholic Church is effectively eradicated from any involvement in Irish society.

Liberal outrage
The vicious, obnoxious tone of some members of this new mob is truly appalling. They have turned on Dr Rhona Mahony, an outstanding and dedicated obstetrician who is a role model for Irish women. But, let’s be honest, the cool gang could not care less about the facts. Once they heard mention of nuns the red mist descended and it was then we moved to a classic liberal outrage contest.

For these individuals, online perception is always more important than clinical outcome. In their world it is apparently acceptable for this project to be sabotaged, with negative consequences for women and children, so long as a few elderly nuns get a good cyber-kicking.

Naturally, if the mob gets their way the hospital will be delayed at a cost of tens of millions of euro to the taxpayer. In my opinion, this would undoubtedly be the most expensive act of online ‘virtue signalling’ in human history. [My emphasis]

As an aside, I make no apologies for pointing out that the Catholic Church has done enormous good work in healthcare for the poorest in society over the past century, even if I am one of the only doctors in Ireland willing to say this publicly. …..

[9] Rory Connor
May 26th, 2017 at 6:53 pm
The second article in the Irish Medical Times “A Complicated Delivery” (by editor Dara Gantly) is equally significant – although for slightly different reasons.
http://www.imt.ie/opinion/editorial/a-complicated-delivery-10-05-2017/

In relation to the ownership issue Dara Gantly writes that
…..Talk is now of a possible long-term lease (999 years anyone?) at a nominal or ‘peppercorn rent’.

It’s a curious development, given that the terms of agreement between the Holles Street and the St Vincent’s Hospital Group (SVHG) clearly stated that both hospitals realised this mediation process represented “the final opportunity to reach agreement on the project”, and that the Minister previously didn’t want to renegotiate it. …..

Indeed and if the Sisters of Charity are so foolish as to agree to this further re-negotiation of the Agreement, the “baying mob” referred to by Doctor Ruairi Hanley [comment #[8] will declare themselves vindicated and victorious. And let not the Sisters suppose that the mob will be content with their victory!

Mr Gantly concludes his article with the following:
…What is of further interest now is that the Minister [for Health] wants to begin a “broader conversation” about the structure of our health service, including the role of voluntary hospitals and the interest religious congregations have in them. This has been happening in education (slowly mind), so we should not be too surprised to see it start in Health.

“That is a good thing and I want to separately put in place a process to facilitate that broader conversation which is long overdue and which will, rightfully, take some time,” Minister Harris has noted. ..

And what will be the nature of this conversation IF Minister Harris sees that the Sisters of Charity and the Church will not stand up for themselves but will attempt to conciliate the mob? When politicians and the media claimed that the Sisters owed €3 million in “compensation”, it was not the Minister for Health, but a Daily Mail journalist who queried the Department of Education and discovered that the Sisters owed nothing and in fact had over-paid! [See comment # [3]]

If the Sisters of Charity attempt to appease the mob in relation to the National Maternity Hospital, then reason and logic will NOT feature in the future “broader conversation” referred to by Simon Harris!

CONCLUSION

An article on the ACP website called The New National Maternity Hospital and the Religious Sisters of Charity features a Statement by Sister Mary Christian that details the Sisters' self-abasement before the mob. It begins:
The Religious Sisters of Charity will end our involvement in St Vincent’s Healthcare Group and will not be involved in the ownership or management of the new National Maternity Hospital...
I commented as follows:

[10] Rory Connor
June 2nd, 2017 at 9:13 pm
I had a number of comments on a previous ACP article “Catholic Ethos and Other Mysteries” including numbers [8] and [9] that referred to articles in the Irish Medical Times. I am reproducing #[9] here. It is very relevant as the Sisters of Charity have not just caved in to vicious and lying allegations; their Statement does not even refer to such allegations. Is anyone really deceived as to their motivation?

[I then repeated the previous comment above which ended with a prediction:
If the Sisters of Charity attempt to appease the mob in relation to the National Maternity Hospital, then reason and logic will NOT feature in the future “broader conversation” referred to by Simon Harris! ]

[11] Rory Connor
June 5th, 2017 at 6:50 pm
In a previous comment (#57 in the “Catholic Ethos and Other Mysteries” discussion #[8] above) I quoted from an article by Doctor Ruairi Hanley in the Irish Medical Times entitled “Minister Build That Hospital”. Doctor Hanley refers to “a baying liberal cyber mob”, their “vicious, obnoxious tone” and continues
“as an aside, I make no apologies for pointing out that the Catholic Church has done enormous good work in healthcare for the poorest in society over the past century, even if I am one of the only doctors in Ireland willing to say this publicly.“[My emphasis]

One reason why other doctors are unwilling to say this publicly, is that they will be undermined by the craven response of the Catholic authorities whose sole concern is to abase themselves before their slanderers. Last year, I corresponded with a man who had done good work in the past in defending falsely accused clergy and religious. However his response in 2016 was that he would not stick out his neck on behalf of people who were not prepared to defend themselves; naturally my request had related to nuns! His attitude – and that of other fair-minded people – can only be reinforced by the recent Statement from the leadership of the Religious Sisters of Charity.

I wonder what would have been the attitude of Jews if they had been attacked in similar fashion? Suppose that a Jewish group had offered to donate land for a hospital under precisely the same conditions as those agreed in November 2016 between Holles St and St Vincents. Suppose that the media and politicians erupted with hate-filled lies – including claims that the Jewish group committed “atrocities” against children, “experimented on [a child] for vaccine trials” and owed the State €3 million. Suppose that the Government Ministers responsible failed to defend the Jewish group against the lies and it was left up to a Daily Mail journalist to find out – via a Freedom of Information request – that the Jewish group owed nothing and had actually overpaid!

Of course, one reason that this would never happen is that the Jewish group would immediately defend its slandered members and take legal action against those responsible. Anti-Semites know this and are very mindful of the risks they would be facing. (For a recent illustration of this process at work try googling the names of the late Lord Greville Janner and his son Queen’s Counsel, Daniel Janner. One article you will find in ‘Police Professional’ on 30 May 2017 is headed “Historical Abuse Accusers Drop Claims against Lord Janner.”)

So Anti-Semites have to be very careful – but NOT anti-clerics and in particular not anti-clerics who tell lies about nuns. There have been a few occasions in which MALE clergy have successfully sued false accusers but the leaders of female religious congregations have always preferred the Appeasement approach. This has worked for the Catholic Church in much the same way it did for Neville Chamberlain in the 1930s i.e. it encourages further attacks from people who recognise moral cowardice when they see it. I wrote an article on this topic a few years ago and little has changed since then:
Sisters of Mercy