Professor Brian MacCraith, Chair of the Independent Future of Media Commission
A newly-established Future of Media Commission intends to “chart a pathway” for public service broadcasting and independent media in Ireland. [My emphasis]
In September 2020, the Irish government announced the new Future of Media Commission, which will examine how “public service objectives” can be funded in a sustainable way, with independent editorial oversight and value for money. The Commission will then make a recommendation on its findings to the government.
As an initial step, the Commission is conducting a public consultation by inviting the views of the public on the key questions to be addressed in its work. The closing date for receipt of public submissions was today Friday 8 January 2020 so (as is my habit) I got mine in at the last minute and here it is.
.Question 1. How should Government develop and support the concept and role of public service media and what should its role in relation to public service content in the wider media be?
You ask "What can be learned from the evolution of public service media over the last decade?"
In 2004 I made an official complaint to Broadcasting Complaints Commission (I think it was then) re RTE's broadcast of the 2002 film "Song for a Raggy Boy" AND RTE notice afterwards inviting people who had been affected by the film to ring a dedicated phone number to voice their pain.
I cannot locate my submission now BUT I referred to it in my Blog article 'Recovered Memory' in Ireland and Allegations of Child Abuse" specifically in the last sections "Patrick Galvin, 'Song for a Raggy Boy' and 'Recovered Memory' " and the Conclusion. The culminating scene in the FILM features a boy being kicked to death by a "Brother in Christ" (Christian Brother backwards). There is no such scene in the 1991 autobiographical BOOK by Patrick Galvin on which the film is supposed to be based, nor of sex abuse either. The murder and sex abuse scenes were added to spice up the film!
When this sort of thing is done to Jews - in the Nazi film Jew Suss that I referred to in my complaint to BCC - it is called Blood Libel. (The 1925 BOOK "Jew Suss" did not include Suss raping or killing anyone.)
The Christian Brothers had to issue a statement saying that Patrick Galvin was never in any institution run by them. However BCC rejected my complaint saying "RTE point out that the film is a work of fiction based on a memoir of actual events. Allowing for dramatic licence therefore, everything depicted in the film does not have to be fully accurate." Indeed you could say the same about the Nazi version of Jew Suss compared to the original! WHY did RTE provide a phone number for members of the public who were inspired by events in the film?
This was OVER 10 years ago but RTE continued in the same vein over the last decade. In 2011 they libelled Fr Kevin Reynolds on Prime Time's "Mission to Prey" as having father a child by raping an underage girl. Instead of a normal investigation of the grotesque claim, they door-stopped him after a First Communion service. They then ignored his offer to take a DNA test and broadcast the libel anyway. A NORMAL conman - motivated by desire for money or fame - would have drawn back at the priest's offer of a DNA test but RTE were blinded by an anti-Clerical hatred no better than the anti-Semite variety!
In 2014 RTE libelled John Waters, Breda O'Brien and other members of the Iona Institute by describing them as Homophobes. It doesn't compare to their previous child rape and murder lies but it stands out because the RTE presenter INVITED "Miss Panti Bliss" to make the comment. To that extent it was well up to RTE's standard! I should also point out that following the libel settlement the then Minister for Communications Pat Rabbitte expressed his desire to change the law in order to make it more difficult to sue RTE. If one of his own ideological allies had been libelled, Minister Rabbitte would have said the opposite! I have written about this in "The Role of Pat Rabbitte"
In 2017 RTE libelled Kevin Myers - well known strong supporter of Israel - as a Holocaust-denier following similar libels by Taoiseach Leo Varadkar and Tanaiste Frances Fitzgerald. It took RTE 2 years to apologise even after the Broadcasting Authority had ruled the claim was false. Kevin Myers said he had feared having to sell his house if he lost the libel case - but of course RTE faced no risk at all. I wrote about this in "Kevin Myers and the Age of de Valera and McQuaid"
It is no co-incidence that Kevin Myers is the ONLY journalist to have defended former Sister of Mercy Nora Wall when she was wrongly convicted of rape in 1999. RTE will NEVER libel a "progressive" journalist!
Given THAT background, there's nothing strange about RTE's recent skit featuring God raping Mary and broadcasting it during the Christmas season on the eve of the Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God on 1st January. There is NO way they would broadcast a skit featuring Muhammed raping a 9 year old girl and do so during Ramadan on the eve of Eid. Just as they wouldn't libel a Muslim cleric with an accusation of fathering a child by raping a girl. I referred above to RTE being motivated by anti-Clerical Hatred BUT Muslims have clerics as well so anti-Catholic hatred is a better description of their attitude!
Question 2. How should public service media be financed sustainably?
You ask "What is the best model for future funding of public service media in Ireland? What approach best supports independent editorial oversight while achieving value for money and delivering on public service aims?"
RTE should be defunded. I read that it receives €180 million from the taxpayer each year. I also see that "public service aims" includes "to ensure that the public has access to high quality, impartial, independent journalism, reporting .. in a balanced way and which contributes to democratic discourse".
In the interests of "balance" would RTE consider broadcasting the film "Jew Suss"? It may be as vile as "Song for a Raggy Boy" and includes scenes not depicted in the (somewhat) more realistic BOOK but at least RTE could say "we're not favouring one side over another".
I was told by a member of Nora Wall's defence team that she was convicted in a climate of hysteria created by the media and SPECIFICALLY by Mary Raftery's States of Fear series, broadcast by RTE just before the trial in 1999! In 2005 I corresponded with then editor of the Irish Times Geraldine Kennedy regarding this issue (among other) and published the exchange on my Blog here: "Mary Raftery and Blood Libel"
This kind of thing has been going on for over 20 years now and I don't believe there is ANY possibility of RTE reforming themselves and delivering "impartial, independent journalism" that "contributes to democratic discourse". In other words, they cannot act as a Public Service Broadcaster and should NOT receive public funds!
Question 3. How should media be governed and regulated?
You ask "Are current legislative and regulatory controls for public service media adequate?"
In my answer to Question 1, I pointed out that, following RTE's libel settlement with John Waters and others in 2014, the then Minister for Communications Pat Rabbitte expressed his desire to change the law in order to make it more difficult to sue RTE!
Even before being appointed Minister, Pat Rabbitte had a well-earned reputation as an anti-Catholic bigot especially due to his role in bringing down the Reynolds Government in 1994. In relation to THAT episode, historian Diarmaid Ferriter wrote "Some became angry that when Harry Whelehan was questioned and denied the existence of a Catholic conspiracy within the Attorney-General's office, he felt the need to defend his right to be a practicing Catholic."
If someone like Pat Rabbitte can be appointed Minister for Communications then NO conceivable "legislative and regulatory controls" will force RTE to carry out their duty to act as a Public Service Broadcaster. They should be denied public funding and obliged to to fund themselves by advertisements and subscriptions like other media!
Justice Seamus Woulfe (right) pictured with Phil Hogan, who resigned from his role as EU Commissioner for Trade after Golfgate
We have a corrupt media and political establishment that goes into hysterics over a minor issue like Golfgate . Meanwhile people who have done great wrong have been promoted to high office and then demoted for ludicrous reasons - as Phil Hogan became Minister and then EU Commissioner after libelling Nora Wall in 2002 and then loses his job over nonsense about attending a gathering of the Oireachtas Golf Society the day after Government health regulations changed!
Phil Hogan was Chair of the Fine Gael Parliamentary Party in April 2002 when he used Parliamentary Privilege to libel former nun Nora Wall and an unnamed senior official in Department of Education whose offence was to give a good report to the Sister of Mercy Home that Nora managed. The official "is the golden thread weaving through a number of centres where children were in some cases tortured and forced to have sex with animals" said Phil. Our anti-clerical media reported what he had said - see section (B) below - but there was no follow-up i.e. they knew he was talking nonsense!
In 2009 - following publication of the Ryan Report that denounced the Religious Orders - Fine Gael Justice spokesman Charlie Flanagan again used Parliamentary Privilege to repeat Hogan's libels against Nora Wall and the still-unnamed Dept. of Education official and added one against the Cistercian monks of Mount Melleray (but for some reason, did not include the bit about nuns forcing children to have sex with animals). Again the media just reported the allegations but without demanding that such grotesque claims be investigated - see section (C). I understand that media reports of Parliamentary proceedings are also privileged but taking them seriously - e.g. by naming the Dept of Education official and demanding he be prosecuted - would leave them open to a libel suit.
Charlie Flanagan was lucky not to be forced to resign as Minister for Justice during the Maurice McCabe scandal. His two predecessors Frances Fitzgerald and Alan Shatter both had to resign on bogus grounds in the midst of media hysteria and even our out-of-control media may have balked at forcing the resignation of a third Minister for Justice! Phil Hogan was not so lucky but both of them had sowed the wind that created the whirlwind!
(A) "Golfgate", Covid and Public Hysteria
On 13 December 2020 there was a story in Sunday Independent by Eilis O'Hanlon 'Covidiots' Are Being Eaten by a Monster They Created . The immediate story concerns Labour leader Alan Kelly going maskless on public transport and Sky broadcaster Kay Burnley bringing friends back to her house after her birthday party thus breaking Covid regulations. Both escaped rather lightly. She mentions others who did not: .
Former Agriculture Minister Dara Calleary was left with no choice but to resign after attending a dinner for 80 in Galway organised by the Oireachtas Golf Society. Jerry Buttimer, who was deputy chair of the Seanad, also stood down, as did Ireland's EU Commissioner Phil Hogan.
Phil Hogan's fall was the greatest of all. EU Commission for Trade when he was forced to resign on 20 August 2020 due to media hysteria regarding "Golfgate", he had previously been Minister for the Environment in the Irish Government and before that Chairman of the Fine Gael Parliamentary Party. Curiously enough he achieved his first (Junior) Ministerial post in the Rainbow Coalition formed in December 1994 - after Pat Rabbitte brought down the Fianna Fail government with his bogus claims concerning Fr Brendan Smyth. Phil Hogan's Ministerial career was launched with a bogus media/political scandal targeting the Catholic Church and - in all likelihood - has ended with an out of control media whipping up hysteria against male authority figures in general!
Eilis O'Hanlon continues
A culture of public shaming has been forged in which wrongdoers are put in the stocks for the righteous to pelt with rotten fruit and sheconcludes: If Alan Kelly and Kay Burley have fallen foul of a ravenous beast of public censoriousness, it's one they helped to create. Monsters always eat their own children.
BUT this "culture of public shaming" commenced long before the Covid crisis and Phil Hogan himself did a great deal to create it!
(B) 2002: Phil Hogan Libels Nora Wall and Senior Dept of Education Official
In April 2002 he used Dail (Parliamentary) Privilege to libel Nora Wall and a senior official in Department of Education.
This is the text of the Irish Times article dated 25 April 2002 entitled
Details were given in the Dáil last night about a retired senior official in the Department of Education who is alleged to have been involved in a Dublin-based child sex ring. At the time he was supposed to be investigating alleged child sex abuse.
Fine Gael chairman Mr Phil Hogan gave details last night about the official, who retired some years ago and who "has been implicated by a victim in a rent-a-boy sex ring with convicted killer Malcolm McArthur". He referred to "astonishing revelations of a perceived and systematic cover-up of rape, gross indecency and abuse of children from 1978 to 1990". The official "is the golden thread weaving through a number of centres where children were in some cases tortured and forced to have sex with animals".
Mr Hogan condemned the Department for its failure to take action about the official and said it was not good enough to say it was voluntarily disclosing documents to the Laffoy commission on child abuse. "This man has never come to the attention of gardaí," he said, but "his name keeps coming up with journalists speaking to health board officials". Mr Hogan asked, "Does anyone really care within the Department about what happened to these poor youngsters who were put in the care of the State and then abused?
The [Fianna Fail] Minister for Education, Dr Woods, said: "I care very much, the secretary-general of my Department cares". He added that they would give any information they could, and would co-operate fully. He said, however, that his Department had no information on any cases which compared to newspaper reports.
Mr Hogan said the official was linked to investigations into sexual abuse in residential centres in Kilkenny city, Cappoquin, Co Waterford, and Clonmel. He was named by a male abuse victim who said he had sex with the man. The victim said he was 17 years old and working as a prostitute at the time.
The official was alleged to have been with convicted murderer Malcolm McArthur when the two picked up the rent boy on the Quays in Dublin. Malcolm McArthur has served 20 years for the murder of a nurse in the Phoenix Park and another man, and was later found in the home of the then Attorney-General.
The prostitute recognised the Department official. He had met him while a resident of St Joseph's school in Clonmel, when the man was a Department inspector. Mr Hogan, referring to the story which appeared in the Ireland on Sunday newspaper last week, said the official also investigated sex abuse by convicted paedophiles and "gave one of the worst offenders a clean bill of health".
He said it was alleged that all of the abuse took place at the time the centre was managed by Nora Wall, a former Sister of Mercy nun whose conviction for rape of a 10-year-old child was quashed by the court of criminal appeal in 1999.
The official was guilty of "gross incompetency at the very least and at very worst there was something very dark and dirty behind him hidden from public view", Mr Hogan added.
(C) 2009: Charlie Flanagan Libels Nora Wall, Cistercian Monks AND Dept of Education Official
A CALL has been made for the reopening of an investigation into former nun Nora Wall, resident manager in the 1980s of St Michael’s Child Care Centre in Cappoquin, Co Waterford.
Fine Gael justice spokesman Charlie Flanagan said she “exposed the children in her care to unacceptable risks by allowing male outsiders to stay overnight at the Cappoquin care home centre in Waterford”. He said: “It has been suggested that there were frequent visits to the Cappoquin home by some clergy from Mount Melleray Abbey. Access to children may have been a key motivation for these visits. We must bear in mind that that very abbey, Mount Melleray, was selected by the notorious paedophile Fr Brendan Smyth as a holiday destination or a haven to escape when he was on the run from the authorities in Northern Ireland. This issue needs to be revisited.”
Mr Flanagan was speaking during the second night of the Dáil debate on the Labour party Private Members’ Institutional Child Abuse Bill which provides that no abuse victim should be denied justice through the redress board. The Bill also removes any record for children incarcerated in reformatory schools by criminal conviction. It was rejected by the Government but the Labour Party did not call a vote last night on the Bill.
[Fianna Fail] Minister of State [for Children] Barry Andrews said the Bill contained a number of good measures and there was some valid criticism of the speed with which the indemnity deal was concluded.
The Fine Gael spokesman also said “there are issues in relation to the charging and release of Nora Wall that need to be revisited by way of investigation. And it is a matter of some concern that reports about interference with witnesses and attempts to buy their silence have been made,” he added. “I believe this particular aspect needs to be fully investigated because any secret payments made by religious institutions to individuals need to be fully probed and examined.”
Deputy Flanagan also called for the Education Finance Board, which has a budget of €12.7 million, to appear before the Public Accounts Committee. “The board administers a very large budget. Concerns have been brought to my attention in respect of what some considered to be rather ad hoc and casual approach to awarding money.”
Ms Wall had a conviction in 1999 for the rape of a 12-year-old girl in her care declared a miscarriage of justice. Mr Flanagan said the Ryan commission report into child abuse described her management of children in her care as “alarming”, “disastrous” “inappropriate and dangerous”.
He said: “One particularly worrying aspect of the Ryan report refers to an incident where a resident of the home with an intellectual disability was sexually assaulted by a colleague in a hotel where he worked part-time. The parents of the boy went to the gardaí. They confronted the abuser, who admitted the abuse. The boy later told the house parent that he did not want to pursue the matter. It was later noted that the boy had a new radio. He told her that Nora Wall had given him a new radio and a new bicycle. This is quite a sinister revelation that needs to be probed further.”
Mr Flanagan referred to the alleged involvement of a senior departmental official in a Dublin-based child sex ring “at a time he was supposed to have been investigating child abuse. That individual had investigated the home run by Nora Wall and given it a clean bill of health at a time when there were serious problems at the home as now identified in the Ryan report,” Mr Flanagan said.
The Irish Times doesn't mention it, but Charlie Flanagan was referring explicitly to Phil Hogan's previous allegations. According to the Dail Eireann Debates record for 8 July 2009: My colleague, Deputy Phil Hogan, highlighted in this House in April 2002 the alleged involvement of a senior departmental official in a Dublin-based child sex ring at a time he was supposed to have been investigating child abuse. That individual had investigated the home run by Nora Wall and gave it a clean bill of health at a time when there were serious problems at the home, as identified by the Ryan report.
Did Charlie Flanagan seriously believe that the Gardai had ignored this claim for the previous 7 years? WHY didn't he repeat Hogan's 2002 allegation that "The official "is the golden thread weaving through a number of centres where children were in some cases tortured and forced to have sex with animals" ?
(D) Libelling the Laity (and non-Catholics) to Get the Church!
Matt Russell (and Harry Whelehan and Albert Reynolds)
It is clear that both Phil Hogan and Charlie Flanagan libelled the Department of Education official because he had given a good report to the Sister of Mercy Home that Nora Wall managed. This wasn't the first time that politicians trashed the reputation of innocent laymen in their desire to demonise the Catholic Church. In my article "Sex Scandals Rock the Catholic Church - and the Role of Pat Rabbitte" I describe how in 1994 the then Democratic Left TD, invented a conspiracy between Cardinal Cahal Daly and Catholic Attorney General Harry Whelehan to protect Fr Brendan Smyth. Regarding this bogus scandal, historian Diarmaid Ferriter wrote "Some became angry that when Harry Whelehan was questioned and denied the existence of a Catholic conspiracy within the Attorney-General's office, he felt the need to defend his right to be a practicing Catholic." However senior civil servant Matt Russell was probably NOT a "practising Catholic" but was forced to resign anyway as a result of the athmosphere of public hysteria created by Rabbitte. (See Appendix 3 to the preceding article: "The Dismissal of Matt Russell")
Pablo McCabe
Moreover Nora Wall's co-accused Pablo (Paul) McCabe was a homeless schizophrenic man, who was obviously penniless but was accused because - prior to 1999 - no woman had been convicted of rape in Ireland. McCabe was branded as the main rapist - with Nora Wall as his helper - in order to make the rape allegations seem more plausible. The two accusers then planned to sue the Sisters of Mercy for a fortune. Their vile antics were a street level version of the behaviour of Rabbitte, Hogan and Flanagan.
She begins with a quote from Arthur Miller's "Death of a Salesman"
I don't say he's a great man... His name was never in the paper. He's not the finest character that ever lived. But he's a human being, and a terrible thing is happening to him. So attention must be paid. He's not to be allowed to fall in his grave like an old dog. Attention, attention must finally be paid to such a person.
Kevin Myers Although the Irish Times account of Charlie Flanagan's attack on Nora Wall in 2009 doesn't mention it, Deputy Flanagan also criticised journalist Kevin Myers - because he had defended her. See my article Justice Minister Charlie Flanagan, George Hook and Nora Wall [1] Since her conviction was overturned, she has been portrayed as an heroic martyr in many quarters with references to witch hunts and witch trials abounding. Six weeks ago, the columnist Kevin Myers wrote in a national newspaper: "The liberal-left lynch mob that went after poor Nora Wall a decade ago was prepared to destroy her life on the basis of lies."
It is therefore not really surprising that in 2017 Kevin Myers himself was libelled - as an anti-Semite! - by then Taoiseach (Prime Minister) Leo Varadkar, his Deputy Frances Fitzgerald, a former Deputy PM Joan Burton and by State Broadcaster RTE. It was a series of events unprecedented in the history of this State and probably of any democracy! I write about it here: Kevin Myers and the Age of de Valera and McQuaid
There was no direct connection between the 2017 libels and Kevin Myers defence of Nora Wall in 1999 but a link certainly exists. There is NO possibility that our "liberal" politicians or RTE would libel "progressive" journalists - like Myers former colleagues in the Irish Times. Kevin Myers was libelled for reasons of ideological hatred - very similar to the motives of racial or religious hatred that inspire extreme Right-wing ideologues!
Ruairi Quinn libels Dept of Education Civil Servants In 1994 Labour Party TD Ruairi Quinn had been an enthusiastic exponent of the hysterical claims that caused the collapse of the Fianna Fail-Labour Coalition headed by Albert Reynolds. He told Reynolds "We've come for a head. Yours or Harry's [Whelehan], and we are not going to get Harry's." He boasted about his role in his 2005 autobiography "Straight Left" written long after it was clear that neither Reynolds nor Whelehan had done anything wrong.
In June 2009 Quinn, then Labour Spokesman for Education said in the Dail that "Either officials in the department [of Education] are members of secret societies, such as the Knights of St Columbanus and Opus Dei, and have taken it upon themselves to protect the interests of these clerical orders at this point in time. . . or, alternatively, the [Fianna Fail] minister is politically incompetent and incapable of managing the department"
Ruairi Quinn's slander of Education officials was not as vile as that of Fine Gael's Phil Hogan or Charlie Flanagan but it was made in June 2009 at the same time that the latter was accusing a former official of being a member of a paedophile ring. It also echoes Richard Webster's observation about the events of 1994 precipitated by Deputy Pat Rabbitte when "the Fianna Fail government of Albert Reynolds fell, amidst talk of a dark conspiracy involving politicians, members of Opus Dei, the Knights of Columbus and others."
Ruairi Quinn was leader of the Labour Party from 1997 to 2002 - prior to voicing his fantasies about Opus Dei in Education - and went on to become Minister for Education himself from 2011 to 2014. Now in retirement, Quinn gave an interview to Kathy Sheridan of the Irish Times which was published on 22 February 2016, entitled "Not retiring quietly, Ruairi Quinn has harsh words for critics"
....There is no shouting now either, more a deep frustration, disappointment and the sadness of a man first elected nearly 40 years ago, now facing into retirement amid unprecedented levels of abuse and venom. He blames media coverage and intolerance, and a general drop in standards. “People feel they can blackguard each other. ..... [my emphasis]
Irony is definitely not the former Education Minister's strong point. There is no hint that Quinn's own brand of thuggish rhetoric had anything to do with the "unprecedented levels of abuse and venom" in public discourse!
Charlie Flanagan vs Civil Servants in Department of Justice I wrote about this issue in a number of previous articles including "Justice Ministers Kevin O'Higgins to Charlie Flanagan: from Decency to Decadence". Two successive Secretary Generals in Department of Justice were forced to resign as on the basis of groundless allegations in relation to the Garda Whistle-blower scandals - and received no support from Justice Ministers Frances Fitzgerald or Charlie Flanagan who were preoccupied with saving their own their own political skins. Civil servants cannot defend themselves against media assault; they depend on their Minister to do so but our current politicians will not stand for justice when faced with a mob.
Secretary General Brian Purcell stood aside in July 2014 after then Justice minister Frances Fitzgerald published the Toland Report on the Department, which identified a "closed, secretive and silo-driven culture" supposedly prevalent there. He was the third senior Justice figure forced to resign - after Minister for Justice Alan Shatter and Garda Commissioner Martin Callinan.
Noel Waters served as acting secretary general of Department of Justice after Mr. Purcell's departure. He was appointed on a permanent basis in October 2016. He had planned to retire in February 2018 but instead resigned on 28 November 2017 while issuing a statement that those working in Justice had been "subjected to a barrage of unwarranted criticism".
Justice is seen as one of the big beast departments, alongside the Departments of the Taoiseach, Finance, Public Expenditure, and Foreign Affairs, and should be one of the most attractive. Yet the process that led to Mr Waters’s eventual appointment took two years, and some who were informally approached turned down the opportunity to interview for the job. “We couldn’t get anyone to apply for it,” said one figure involved in the process.
Secretary Generals usually remain in place for 7 years but Noel Waters stepped down in November 2017 a few hours after former Justice Minister Frances Fitzgerald resigned as Tanaiste (Deputy Prime Minister). He made a statement to colleagues that is probably unprecedented in the history of the civil service:
As he departed, he strongly defended the department - which he said had been “subject to a barrage of unwarranted criticism” - in an email to colleagues. “I want to assure you that, in so far as is humanly possible, this Department has sought at all times to act appropriately, upholding the law and the institutions of the State,” he wrote. “Many of the claims about how the Department has acted that have been made in the media and in the Dáil are not true. The Department makes an important contribution to Irish society, a contribution that more often than not goes unseen and unnoticed,” he added, urging staff not to “not lose sight of your contribution to public service and continue to give your best. Through the years I have worked with truly talented and honourable people and each and every one of you work to make Ireland a safe, fair and inclusive place to live and work.”
The authors of the "barrage of unwarranted criticism" and the "untruthful claims" included Taoiseach Leo Varadkar and Minister for Justice Charlie Flanagan. Leo Varadkar said the events of recent days “again exposed major problems within a dysfunctional Department of Justice, including the way important emails were not found and therefore not sent on to the Charleton Tribunal during discovery”.
Charlie Flanagan: “I want to record my thanks to Deputy Kelly for his PQs which led to the unearthing of an email that had not been sent to the Tribunal.” The minister poured blame on officials at the Department of Justice, saying it has been “a major challenge at every step to obtain complete information in a timely manner, indeed, on a few occasions recently, information has been provided to me, to the Taoiseach, and then to this House, which has proven subsequently to be inaccurate
Charlie Flanagan, who libelled Nora Wall and Leo Varadkar who libelled Kevin Myers, are prepared to trash the reputations of their civil servants. When they attack those in Department of Justice they are directly undermining the security of the State.
(E) Supreme Court Justice Seamus Woulfe Refuses to Resign in "Golfgate"
Last Thursday night, a story broke about a dinner at a hotel in the west of Ireland that has thrown the country's government into turmoil. First reported in the Irish Examiner, it emerged that more than 80 people had attended an Irish parliamentary golf society event in Clifden, County Galway. Included on the guest list were a host of high-profile figures from Irish political life. But the event came just one day after Irish authorities tightened Covid-19 restrictions on gatherings. Gardaí (Irish police) are investigating the event for possible breaches of the regulations. A week later, three politicians, including a government minister and EU trade commissioner Phil Hogan, have resigned their posts. Mr Hogan - who would have been leading the EU's post-Brexit free trade negotiations with the UK - had been facing calls to quit for days before he fell on his sword on Wednesday night. ... James Sweeney, from the Station House Hotel where the event was held, told Irish broadcaster RTÉ he had checked with the Irish Hotels Federation to ensure the event complied with regulations. He said he was told it would be, if the guests were in two separate rooms, with fewer than 50 people in each.
As a result of this preposterous media-created "scandal" Agriculture Minister Dara Calleary resigned as did Jerry Buttimer, the deputy chairman of the Irish Senate. They did so without creating a fuss and no doubt their careers won't be permanently affected. The same cannot be said about Phil Hogan, the man who used Dail Privilege to libel Nora Wall and an unnamed senior official in Dept of Education. He strongly resisted his downfall - and rightly so - but it hard to imagine him ever rising again to the dizzy heights he once scaled. In addition Ireland is seen as having undermined its own reputation in the EU. Of course we lost the very important Trade Commissioner post and our replacement Commissioner Mairead McGuinness has been allocated part of the portfolio once held by Valdis Dombrovskis - the man who was promoted to take over from Phil Hogan!
But fellow-attendee at the golf society dinner, Justice Seamus Woulfe who had only been appointed to the Supreme Court in July 2020, refuses to resign! The Supreme Court requested its former Chief Justice, Susan Denham, to report on Woulfe's attendance at the dinner. Denham's report was published on 1 October 2020. She concluded that in the circumstances Woulfe should not have attended the dinner, but she observed that he did not break the law or Covid guidelines. She said that a resignation would be "unjust and disproportionate" - a perfectly sensible observation amidst the hysteria! Ms Justice Denham said she was “of the opinion that it would be open to the Chief Justice [Frank Clarke] to deal with this matter by way of informal resolution.” The Supreme Court initially accepted Denham's Report but media and political hysteria continued and Woulfe criticised same in a private meeting with colleagues.
Frank Clarke met with Woulfe as part of the "informal resolution" on 5 November 2020 where he read the contents of a draft letter to Woulfe. Clarke said that all of the judges of the Supreme Court, including the Presidents of the Court of Appeal and the High Court, believed that Woulfe's actions had caused "significant and irreparable" damage to the Supreme Court. The Chief Justice said that in his "personal opinion" Woulfe should resign. He referred to developments since the report was published doubting Woulfe's understanding of "genuine public concern" and questioning Woulfe's critical remarks of the Taoiseach, the government, and his judicial colleagues. On 9 November, contrary to the wishes of Woulfe, Chief Justice Clarke published the correspondence in which reprimanded Woulfe for his response to the scandal and stated that it was his opinion that Woulfe should resign in order to avoid continuing serious damage to the judiciary
Justice Seamus Woulfe faced down public hysteria generated by the media and endorsed by his own colleagues and refused to resign. Under the Constitution a judge may be removed from office only for "stated misbehaviour or incapacity" and only if a joint resolution is adopted by both houses of the Oireachtas (Parliament). No judge has been removed from office under this procedure since the foundation of the state in 1922. At attempt was made by a few far-left TDs to invoke the impeachment procedure but received no support from the main political parties. The latter would have liked Justice Woulfe to relieve them of responsible by resigning but had no appetite for a fight against a determined opponent! On 17 November 2020, Taoiseach (PM) Michael Martin said the government would not pursue any further action against Woulfe.
(F) Conclusion Sinn Fein and Antifa
Since Ireland's three main political parties are in coalition now, Sinn Fein are the main opposition and are likely to come to power in Ireland's next general election. In my article about the Free Speech Vs Anti-Racism Rallies in December 2019, I wrote about how those of us who opposed Charlie Flanagan's Hate Speech proposals were attacked by Antifa. The attackers were held back by the Gardai (police) and by their own stewards. I have little interest in politics myself but I was told the stewards were from Sinn Fein. But what will happen when Sinn Fein are in power? Will they appoint a new Garda Commissioner and instruct him not to intervene in those circumstances? Will they continue to restrain the street fighting thugs - OR use them as their own enforcers of political orthodoxy?
One thing is clear. Politicians like Charlie Flanagan and Leo Varadkar (and former ones like Phil Hogan, Alan Shatter (NOTE [1] ) Ruairi Quinn and Pat Rabbitte) have gutted their integrity - much more so than democratic politicians in the Weimar Republic whom historians see as mediocrities rather than morally corrupt. (Supreme Court Judges - including Chief Justice Frank Clarke - have also demonstrated their weakness in the face of popular hysteria.) Weimar "decadence" was more in evidence among the intelligentsia than the political class. It's certainly evident among Irish intellectuals who express no objection to bogus allegations of child rape and murder being directed at Catholic clergy. However our political class for certain - and perhaps our judges - are similarly decadent and equally incapable of standing up to the barbarians at the gates!
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 websiteIrishSalem.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] )
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)
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].
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 NotAnotherPoliticianDec 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!
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 DestinyFeb 27 2012: If Diarmuid Martin became Pope tomorrow he'd be the FDR of the Vatican.
KilbarryFeb 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 QuirellFeb 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...
KilbarryFeb 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 LamportsEdgeFeb 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 CorelliFeb 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:
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!
TolandFeb 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 TolandFeb 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.
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!
KilbarryFeb 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."
