'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]

The Folly of the Sisters of Charity (and other Nuns)

 

Nuns who Trashed their own Reputations in order to "Heal Pain" of Accusers!

In July 2021, Ireland's Deputy Prime Minister Leo Varadkar decided to bolster the chances of his Fine Gael party in a by-election by throwing  a few scraps to anti-clerical voters. He suggested that ownership of the National Maternity Hospital was still a problem and that any obstetric or gynaecological service that was legal in the State would have to be available in the hospital at its new site. (See part D "The Dishonesty of Leo Varadkar" of article Leo Varadkar, the Sisters of Charity and the National Maternity Hospital ). Liberal priest Fr Brendan Hoban accused Varadkar of throwing "the equivalent of a grenade" into this so-called controversy, the salient points of which were settled years ago. However Varadkar knew he was in a win-win situation. He realised that the Sisters of Charity were not going to defend themselves so there was no danger of losing any votes. In 2017 the Sisters' most prominent representative Sr Stanislaus Kennedy reacted to a 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 ] 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!

(A) Irish Catholic Nuns and 'Appeasement' - "A clever plan to sell out your friends in order to buy off your enemies" 

The quote is from a British journalist in The Guardian in 1939 and is a good description of the tactics of the Sisters of Mercy, Sisters of Charity, Presentation Sisters, Ursulines etc over the past 25 years. I wrote about it in a number of essays on this Blog including "The Decadence of the Sisters of Mercy" and also the article entitled "Sisters of Mercy" on my old website (not Blog) IrishSalem.com. The latter article also includes the related antics of other Congregations of female religious. The endless repetition of the same misguided tactics over a period of a quarter of a century suggests that "naivety" is NOT  a sufficient explanation! 

What follows is my attempt to summarise 25 years of Nuns' folly:

SISTERS OF MERCY

(i) The first apology by the Sisters of Mercy followed the February 1996 broadcast by RTE of the documentary "Dear Daughter" regarding atrocities allegedly committed by the Sisters at Goldenbridge industrial school. These allegations included a nun Sister Xavieria beating one girl (Christine Buckley) so badly that she needed about 100 stitches in her leg. It was an obvious lie - as pointed out by Richard Webster and by a contemporaneous article in The Sunday Times.  

"No medical evidence has ever been produced to substantiate this bizarre claim. The surgeon who ran the casualty department at the hospital in question has given evidence which renders it highly unlikely that such an incident ever took place. Apart from anything else, the surgeon points out that caning would not have caused a wound of this kind, which would have required surgical treatment under a general anaesthetic and not stitches in a casualty department. Yet although the evidence suggests that the woman’s memory was a delusion, her testimony was widely believed at the time." [Richard Webster]

 Christine Buckley's risible claims was indeed "widely believed at the time" - mainly because of the equally absurd apology by the Sisters of Mercy. There was supposed to be a discussion within the Sisterhood as to how to handle the allegations. I was told that older Sisters believed the "discussion" was fake, with the outcome determined in advance and that the leadership never intended to condemn the lies or defend their own innocent members!   

(ii) Second Apology by the Sisters of Mercy: Richard Webster wrote that "In the wake of the broadcast, atrocity stories about Goldenbridge and other industrial schools began to proliferate." It would be more accurate to write that "In the wake of the apology by the Sisters of Mercy.."

Following the documentary and apology, a family accused Sister Xavieria of being responsible for the death of their baby daughter 40 years before by burning the baby's legs. The Sisters did not admit liability but in October 1997 they paid £20,000 and expressed their "sorrow and regret" to the accusers. After receiving payment the mother gave an interview to the Daily Mirror in which she accused Sister Xavieria of using a hot poker to  murder baby Marion Howe by burning holes in the baby's legs. HOT POKER WAS USED ON LITTLE MARION.. NO CASH WILL GET HER BACK; I THINK MY BABY WAS MURDERED AT THE ORPHANAGE, SAYS PAYOUT MUM. [The Mirror, 11 October 1997, article by Neil Leslie]

The Mirror have highly paid lawyers to defend themselves against libel suits but Mirror executives rightly understood that they were dealing with decadent fools who would not fight! The Mercy leadership team made no attempt to condemn the libel or to defend Sister Xavieria. (Perhaps they did not wish to "cause pain" to Christina Howe whose baby had died in 1955).

(iii) Third Apology by the Sisters of Mercy: 

After Nora Wall (formerly Sister Dominic) and her co-accused Pablo McCabe were wrongly convicted of rape in June 1999 the Sisters announced that: "We are all devastated by the revolting crimes which resulted in these verdicts. Our hearts go out to this young woman who, as a child, was placed in our care. Her courage in coming forward was heroic. We beg anyone who was abused whilst in our care to go to the Gardai" (police.) Even after the collapse of the case against the two accused, the Sisters made no effort to apologise to Nora Wall or to withdraw their statement of support for her accusers.

The Sisters' betrayal of Pablo (Paul) McCabe was equally grotesque. In her 2006 article in the Jesuit Review Studies  "Miscarriage of Justice: Paul McCabe and Nora Wall", Breda O'Brien writes:

Paul McCabe addressed a Diocesan Gathering of Mercy Sisters in Gracedieu in Waterford in1988. His account tells of being born in Dublin in 1949 to a single mother. She struggled on until Paul was three, but she ‘had great difficulty in working, paying for accommodation and paying someone to look after me.” Thus he came to live in what was to become known as the “ old St. Michael’s”, a junior industrial school run by the Sisters of Mercy in Cappoquin. His memories of that time are “very happy ones of caring and interested women.” He then went to the Industrial School at Artane, Dublin, which he found traumatic, as it had “over nine hundred boys in a very strict set-up.”  

So when Pablo could be depicted as a victim of the Patriarchy, the Sisters of Mercy allowed him to address one of their annual meetings. When he was falsely accused of rape, they threw him to the wolves and sided with his accusers! The very patriarchal Archbishop John Charles McQuaid would never have invited Pablo McCabe to address a meeting of Dublin priests. Neither would he have betrayed Pablo - and one of his own priests - the way the Merciful Sisters betrayed Nora Wall and Pablo McCabe!

(iv) Fourth Apology of the Sisters of Mercy:

In May 2004 the Sisters unexpectedly made what was called their "second" (actually fourth) apology to their accusers. There was no obvious motive for this exercise in self-degradation but the apology was greeted with delight by leaders of "victims" groups - notably Christine Buckley. Shortly afterwards these leaders resumed their attacks on the the very Merciful Sisters. It is arguable that this apology - and the appointment of Diarmuid Martin as Archbishop of Dublin, the previous month - marked the end of any serious effort by the Catholic Church to defend itself against false allegations of child abuse.

See articles by David Quinn in the Irish Independent on 6 May 2004  Victims Welcome Sisters of Mercy Apology (as indeed they might):

The Mercy Sisters yesterday made what they called an "unconditional" apology to abuse victims and have directly appealed to victims to forgive them for any "physical and emotional trauma" they suffered while in their care. The historic apology, which was issued suddenly and unexpectedly, was prompted by complaints from victim groups that an earlier apology, issued in 1996, was conditional and appeared to cast doubt on whether abuses had actually occurred in orphanages and industrial schools. 

AND

The latest apology by the Sisters was really a bolt from the blue. Most other statements of this sort by Church organisations had usually come as a result of intense public and media pressure. This one emerged following a long period of consultation within the Order. [My emphasis]The leadership team of the Mercy Sisters, led by Sr Breege O'Neill, were well aware that their previous apology, issued in 1996, had not been favourably received by victim groups. Although it did not deny that abuses had taken place, and both apologised and sought forgiveness from the victims, just as this one did, it also offered a partial defence of the record of the Mercy Sisters making the apology seem equivocal and conditional to some. 

 This "unconditional" apology was issued after it was clear that the allegations of child rape against Nora Wall and Pablo McCabe were false as was the claim that Sister Xavieria murdered a baby. The Sisters of Mercy "leadership team" led by Sr Breege O'Neill, ignored the protests of the older nuns who were targeted by the sociopaths and abased themselves before power: 

Reading out the statement on behalf of her congregation yesterday, the head of the Mercy Sisters, Sr Breege O'Neill, pleaded with victims to forgive them for any abuses they had suffered. Responding to questions afterwards, she said she accepted that all her fellow sisters could do was to ask for forgiveness and it was up to the victims to give it.

 (v) Reaction of Secular World to Sisters' Self-Abasement

• In 2003/04 one anti-clerical Irish journalist surprised me by publishing some articles about false allegations of child abuse directed against Catholic priests and religious. After the Sisters' fourth apology he reverted to his normal hostile sneering tone. I was told by someone who knew him that he saw the apology as demonstrating that the Sisters of Mercy were imbeciles and responded accordingly!
• A few years ago I corresponded with a much more credible individual who had done a lot to combat false allegations. However, in relation to the Sisters of Mercy, he told me that "I won't stick out my neck on behalf of people who won't defend themselves".
• Nora Wall left the Sisters of Mercy. In 2002 she got an apology and libel damages from the Sunday World, in 2005 a Certificate of Miscarriage of Justice from the Court of Criminal Appeal and in 2016 major damages from the State. The much older Sister Xavieria did not leave the Congregation but I was told that she was deeply unhappy about how she was treated by its leaders.

PRESENTATION SISTERS

(vi) In 2002, 18 religious congregations - including the Sisters of Mercy - agreed with the Governemnt to pay a voluntary contribution of €128 million towards the cost of compensating alleged victims of child abuse under a Residential Institutions Redress Scheme set up by the Government. The Redress Scheme was proposed as a way of compensating "victims" while avoiding putting them through the "trauma" of court proceedings (where evidence of wrong-doing would have been needed.) The Scheme provided for compensation for physical, sexual or emotion abuse or denial of opportunity and the validation threshold was set so low that, in effect, anyone who ever attended an industrial school would qualify for compensation.

The Redress Scheme was a Government initiative and did not require any input from the religious congregations. However in 2001 Sister Elizabeth Maxwell, a Presentation Sister who was then head of the Conference of Religious of Ireland (CORI), had approached the Government with a unilateral offer that the religious would contribute. Her "naivety" ensured that the Government kept increasing its demands and Sister Elizabeth kept abasing herself. An article in the the Irish Times on 1st June 2009 is entitled "Sr Maxwell says 2002 Deal May Have been Inadequate. CORI Figure has 'Open Mind' on Payments" It points out that the highest number of claims originally envisaged was 2,000 but "The Residential Institutions Redress Board ultimately received 14,584 applications by its deadline of December 15th, 2005." 

The Presentation Sister who helped negotiate the 2002 compensation agreement for abuse victims with the Government has said she is keeping her mind “totally open” on what further contributions the religious congregations may make in the context. Speaking to The Irish Times yesterday, Sr Elizabeth Maxwell said she was “waiting until the meeting with the Taoiseach next Thursday to see what proposals he has’’. Then “the congregations can decide how much they can contribute’’ towards that, she said.

The 2002 agreement was conducted “in good faith’’ at the time, she said, and “on the basis of figures made available to us by the Government and the congregations.’’ Earlier yesterday Sr Maxwell said the 2002 agreement may have been inadequate in the light of information in the Ryan report. Secretary general to the Conference of Religious of Ireland (Cori) at the time of the 2002 agreement, she said she was not then aware of the extent of the abuse....

Asked if congregations should hand over €1.5 billion to the scheme, an estimated figure of their value, Sr Maxwell said they had not been asked. “We may arrive at some point like that when we speak to the Taoiseach . . . the Government may not have to forcibly take anything from us.”

A "negotiator" like Sister Elizabeth Maxwell was a gift to Ireland's anti-clerics! In 2017 several politicians from Fianna Fail, The Greens, Labour and the Social Democrats claimed that the Sisters of Charity owed €3 million "Redress" to the State - at a time when it actually owed €2 million to them! The Fine Gael Health Minister who knew the truth remained silent - why defend people too decadent to defend themselves against transparent lies? [See section (B) (ii) below]. And indeed the Sisters of Charity followed in the footsteps of Sister Elizabeth, declined to condemn the lie and bowed before the power of the State.

URSULINE SISTERS

(vii) In August 2009, Sister Marianne O'Connor, an Ursuline Sister and then head of CORI accepted an invitation from John Cooney (the journalist who claimed that Archbishop John Charles McQuaid had been a homosexual paedophile) to address his Humbert Summer School.

In her speech Sr Marianne endorsed suggestions that there be a national day of atonement for victims of abuse, and spoke of “a service where a public ritual of reconciliation could occur between representatives of the survivors, the State, the religious and the church”. Noting that her attendance at Humbert was “the first public forum to which religious have been invited since Ryan [report]”, she continued that “I am here, first and foremost, to apologise . . . to do whatever we can to make reparation.” She continued: “We religious are asking for forgiveness . . . Without forgiveness one is stuck, unable to move forward.” Survivors “had the huge challenge, and the huge power, of forgiving . . . But forgiveness, like mercy, blesses the giver and the receiver,” she said. The congregations would “provide money for reparation. But we must do much more than provide money. We must listen and learn, to the degree survivors will permit us, to journey with them as they discover what they need”, she said.

In an article in the Irish Independent on 24 August 2009, the same John Cooney reported on how "victims" had responded to Sister Marianne's touching invitation:

In turn, survivor Michael O'Brien, the former mayor of Clonmel who captured the nation's imagination by challenging the platitudes of Government minister Noel Dempsey on an unforgettable RTE 'Questions and Answers' programme, bowed to the good judge [Ryan] and thanked him "for the momentous work you and your team have done". But Mr O'Brien was only prepared to give conditional pardon to the religious congregations who locked up him and thousands of other children in penal institutions as serfs. He will forgive his oppressors only when he knows in his heart that "these people mean it when they say 'we are really, really sorry'." "I do not want silly apologies. I want to see repentance," he said.

I wrote at the time: "This was the culmination of many years of self-degradation by female religious congregations in the face of false accusers - especially the Sisters of Mercy. They have made themselves ludicrous and thereby have made it impossible for anyone to "reconcile" with them."

(B) National Maternity Hospital and 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!  

(C) 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! 

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!  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! 

Archbishop Diarmuid Martin, the Simpsons and Our Insect Overlords

 

Archbishop of Dublin Diarmuid Martin

Archbishop Diarmuid AKA Kent Brockman welcoming our Insect Overlords

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

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

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

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

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

(B) Archbishop Diarmuid and I

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

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

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

(C) The Archbishop and Miss Panti Bliss

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

(D) The Archbishop and the Sisters of Mercy

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

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

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

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

He had been speaking recently to the leadership team of the Mercy congregation’s southern province, “women who have given their lives in the service of the church”, and who were “very broken, very sad”. They felt “let down by us, the bishops”.

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

 

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

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

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

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

Archbishop Diarmuid Martin

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

The family have been hounded out of Kilcoole, Redcross, Rathnew and Ashford. I think they are all in the Archdiocese of Dublin which covers most of Co. Wicklow as well. Ashford certainlly is and that is where their house was burned down. Archbishop Diarmuid Martin has become a great hero of the liberal media because of the way he has dealt with allegations of child sexual abuse. He cannot make a speech without denouncing the evils of abuse and apologising for the way the Church dealt with them in the past. He even put pressure on Bishop Martin Drennan to resign even though NO criticism had been made of him in the Murphy Report. (Like the Wicklow mob, the Archbishop seems to believe in guilt by association.) ......Would it be too much to ask the Archbishop to condemn the behaviour of the people who hound an innocent mother and her four children? The mob are abusing these innocents. Moreover the hysteria and fanaticism generated by the mob will rebound on real victims of child sexual abuse in the future. Cynicism is what normally follows after Hysteria.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Irish Times - Readers Letters and Feedback

A fear among priests

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

Kilbarry - Jan 16 2016

Archbishop Diarmuid - Sins of Omission re Child Sex Abuse

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have a gut feeling that they despise him!

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

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

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

Rory Connor

30 November 2020, amended 2 December 2020 

NOTES:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nice to see my own views confirmed!