´óÏó´«Ã½

William - now you're being disengenious and pedantic. It's common to reserve the expression "ask for someones resignation" to the person who actually has the authority to sack a person. So for Archbishop Martin to say he has no authority to ask for a resignation is perfectly correct.

As for this rubbish about expelling the Nuncio - catch a grip. You think Ireland should break of diplomatic relations over this? You can't have it both ways. If Murphy's commission is independent of Government, then why should the Government be reacting to the Nuncio now? Her legal argument is nonsense. Her commission is an organ of the State established by legislation - it's not a social club writing to the Nuncio for a photograph of the Pope.

And William - the Holy See is the Holy See - that's who we've Diplomatic relations with, not partly with the Catholic church and partly with the Vatican City State - it's just the Holy See.

I've joined this site to take on the ridiculous and insulting comments here from mccamleyc, who seems to adopt an attitude similar to 'my country, right or wrong'. In his case, it is 'my church, right or wrong'. Well I am a committed catholic and I'll tell you this, it is not my church, or the pope's, it is Christ's church, and those bishops and priests who have abused children or covered up that abuse are not the disciples of christ and they need to be exposed and rejected for what they are. The archbishop of Dublin needs to rediscover his backbone and stand up to those bishops who refuse to resign even when they have been named and shamed in the report. That means saying in public he thinks they should tender their resignation to the pope. These are the same people who covered up abuse to protect the reputation of the church, then caused an even greater scandal. Now they are hurting the church even more by refusing to resign. If they believe the church's future is more important than their own, let them go and go quickly.

mccamleyc's nonsense about diplomatic relations is typical of the attitude of legalism that got us all into this mess. The church needs to be a church first, not some jumped-up wannabe city state. The days of the papal states are long gone. If the Vatican State is being used, as an entity, to resist cooperating with an inquiry into child abuse, then the Vatican State should cease to exist.

William, you're looking for Canon 401 #2. A diocesan Bishop "is earnestly requested to offer his resignation" should it become impossible for him to fulfil his ordinary duties. So in Murray's case it really is up to the good Catholics of Limerick. Many of us would be glad to see the back of Diarmuid Martin as well. He's milking this for all it's worth. Just like you, William.

In response to the question, how do you sack a bishop, the following information from the Catholic Encyclopedia is useful - and gives a few ways to address the current reluctance of Catholic bishops to do the decent thing and resign:
"Nomination, translation, renunciation, and deposition of a bishop
The general rules relating to the nomination of a residential bishop will be found in the article BISHOP. They are applicable whatever may have been the cause of the vacancy of the diocese, except in the case of a contrary order of the Holy See. The Church admits the principle of the perpetuity of ecclesiastical benefices. Once invested with a see the bishop continues to hold it until his death. There are, however, exceptions to this rule. The bishop may be allowed by the pope to resign his see when actuated by motives which do not spring from personal convenience, but from concern for the public good. Some of these reasons are expressed in the canon law; for instance, if a bishop has been guilty of a grave crime (conscientia criminis), if he is in failing health (debilitas corporis), if he has not the requisite knowledge (defectus scientiœ), if he meets with serious opposition from the faithful (malitia plebis), if he has been a cause of public scandal (scandalum populi), if he is irregular (irregularitas) — c. 10, X, De renuntiatione, I, 9; c. 18, X, De regularibus, III, 32. The pope alone can accept this renunciation and judge of the sufficiency of the alleged reasons. Pontifical authorization is also necessary for an exchange of dioceses between two bishops, which is not allowed except for grave reasons. The same principles apply to the transfer (translatio) of a bishop from one diocese to another. Canonical legislation compares with the indissoluble marriage tie the bond which binds the bishop to his diocese. This comparison, however, must not be understood literally. The pope has the power to sever the mystical bond which unites the bishop to his church, in order to grant him another diocese or to promote him to an archiepiscopal see. A bishop may also be deposed from his functions for a grave crime. In such a case the pope generally invites the bishop to resign of his own accord, and deposes him only upon refusal. As the Holy See alone is competent to try the crime of a bishop, it follows that the pope alone, or the congregation to which he has committed the bishop's trial (Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, the Propaganda, sometimes the Inquisition), can inflict this penalty or pronounce the declaratory sentence required when the law inflicts deposition as the sanction of a specified delinquency. Finally, the pope has always the right, strictly speaking, to deprive a bishop of his diocese, even if the latter is not guilty of crime; but for this act there must be grave cause. After the conclusion of the Concordat of 1801 with France, Pius VII removed from their dioceses all the bishops of France. It was, of course, a very extraordinary measure, but was justified by the gravity of the situation."

Defenestration worked in the Middle Ages.

"How do you sack a bishop?"

I'd say a good way is to sneak up behind him and take him by surprise when he isn't paying attention. If you can get some help he can be held down while you get the sack over his head. Handcuffing him could make it easier. Those who have to move wild animals use a tranquilizer dart fired from a rifle which works just about every time. The question isn't how to sack him but what to do with him after he's in the bag.

"....Sing rickety tickety tin,
The water tasted bad for a week
And we had to make do with gin"

Folks you can attack me all you like. All I try to do is bring some rational perspective in this situation. I face the fact of child abuse - I know it happened, I know the failures of some bishops contributed to its continuance, just as the failures of police contributed, and hard to face but true, the failures of parents contributed. I accept those realities - I've never denied those things. But I don't think Donal Murray conspired to cover up - I don't read his actions in that way, I don't think he was motivated in that way. That's a matter of opinion and judgment.

Another fact - the Gardai have already investigated these matters and they have determined that no case can be made against any of the bishops in question. People may not like that but it is a legal fact - this is the point that some troll starts typing about how morality and law aren't the same etc and am I saying bishops were right to do what they did.

Now as regards the Holy See - even the Taoiseach has admitted the Holy See acted in good faith and appropriately when it advised the Department of Foreign Affairs that the Commission should use the normal diplomatic channels. For some reason, inflated self regard or otherwise, the Commission refused to do that. This kick out the nuncio stuff is the same sort of rubbish we're getting about FIFA and the world cup - time for trolls to start attacking for comparing child abuse to football. I'm not, I'm comparing one group of stupid people with another.

As for the suggestion that legalism got us into this mess, it was the absence of legalism that got us here.

Now to repeat a question I have now asked several times and to which no one has answered. I feel like Jeremy Paxman here:

When are those so keen to point the finger at the Catholic Church going to point it at GPs, clinics, Brook etc who hand out contraception to minors and therefore not just cover up, but facilitate illegal child abuse. Your silence makes you complicit - at which point the trolls start typing "stop trying to distract" (from the 3% of abuse to the 97%)

I don't think the Nuncio should be kicked out of Ireland. I think the Irish government should declare his diplomatic immunity null and void and hold him as a material witness, one kept in prison without bail as a flight risk. At the investigation, the investigators should subpoena all records he might have either in Ireland or back in the Vatican that might be relevant to the uninvestigated complaints, the movement of accused priests from one parish to another, any attempts to cover the crimes up, and any other pertinent knoweldge he might have that he is withholding. The question of each suspect should be "what did he know and when did he know it?" If he doesn't produce the documents or at least opens up all of his records for investigators to examine, he should be held in contempt of court until he does. Kicking him out would merely be allowing him to escape and he is potentially far too valuable a witness for that. The Vatican can scream all it likes but in the end, Stalin's question always comes up; "How many divisions does the Pope have?"

I have to wonder what happened to all of the usual suspects. They seem strangely silent since this broke, scattered to the four winds as it were. Pastorphilip has been nowhere to be found. What ever happened to that guy with the anti-church church who went to New York City, the one who was so angry when I suggested he might be in it for the money? Wonder what he's doing now. Probably volunteer work in some church soup kitchen working for room and board. I think they're all hiding in the closet hoping the storm passes them buy thinking "there but for the grace of god go I." How many of them have their own skeletons hiding in the closet.

Can he be prosecuted? A social worker would be.

Jayfurneaux

A reveiw of the state's policy, Children First, issued last year found that social workers are reluctant to report allegations of abuse made against colleagues and a failure to report to the Garda. So I don't think it's that simple.

Part of the problem is that any form of allegation triggers such a nuclear explosion and, even if the person is entirely innocent, effectively ends their career.

Still waiting for an answer to my question in #7

No one? Moral cowardice all round? Supporters of cover up?

It is not at all surprising that mccamleyc wishes to change to subject to a conversation about abortion. He calls us trolls if we regard this as a change of conversation from priestly child abuse. You are a disgrace, mccamleyc. You flaunt your catholic credentials on here and bring our church into disrepute by your attempts to defend the indefensible. I say to the media: keep digging, keep asking the hard questions, do not allow self-regarding people like mccamleyc to distract you from pursuing this matter. It is too important to let go of it now.

This is really very simple. ANY bishop criticised in the Murphy report for failing in his duty of care to abused children should resign now. Archbishop Martin is losing my support at the minute because he is not taking a stand on this. Why should a bishop be allowed to decide if he is to resign? That's madness. If a bishop covered up abuse or failed to act appropriately, he should be forced out. The Vatican needs to wake up and take some responsibility.

If the Catholic Church can't be trusted to tell the truth about something as important as whether or not its priests are sexually abusing children and the higher ups are covering it up, how can they be trusted to tell the truth about something as unimportant as the existance of god?

Since he doesn't know his own name that may explain why "Joseph Ratzinger" (sic) can't read. Where do I mention abortion?

For the record, I'd be perfect happy if the bishops concerned were to resign - perhaps it would help the situation and perhaps in conscience they, or some of them should - but it would have little impact on the reality of abuse. If anything it could be a further exercise in the Church saving face again. They'd be like the bad banks we dump our toxic morality in.

I have no illusions about Irish bishops, I think they've failed in leadership in a whole range of issues, including their failure to teach morality, but none of that means I turn of my reason and become part of the mob. So to restate some realities.

People calling for arrests, Garda investigations, further probes etc - fine, no problem with that; it would be far better than more commissions and reviews. I merely made the point that the Garda have already done that with these cases and concluded they can't make a case. That may a fault in the Gardai, or in the law but it's the reality. Have a look at this story in today's Irish Times

It's about a teacher accused of abuse. I don't know anything about the details of the case but it shows how bad we are at dealing with these cases, both from the point of view of the accuser and the accused.

Celibacy - who can possibly think that a paedophile will be "cured" or saved by marriage? What woman would want to have married Fortune or Payne or Brendan Smyth or any of these guys. If they were married they'd be abusing their own kids.

I have to laugh at the notion of flaunting one's Catholic credentials. What does that even mean? If I say I'm a Catholic that means I'm flaunting it?

mccamleyc, thank you for response 15. That's progress. You tone is changing a little bit, not much, but it's progress. Your previous comments have sounded arrogant and less than concerned about the abuse scandal we are facing. I think others here came to that conclusion too. Those comments have not helped the church. I am glad you now think resignations would be appropriate. I agree with you that resignations cannot be enough, but they are a start. The fact that there will be no further Garda investigation in many of these cases makes it even more important that we force resignations from those bishops who were part of this system of cover-up.

I agree that celibacy is not the issue with paedophile priests. In the case of Catholic abuse scandals, the number of cases of paedophilia is said to be around 10 per cent of all child abuse cases. The majority of the children involved were 12-16 years old. Their abusers are still evil, wicked men, and it is still sexual abuse, but the term paedophile doesn't seem appropriate in those cases (technically).

I think removing the requirement for celibacy is essential for moving forward and repopulating the priesthood with men who are not hung up sexually. We need people for who sex is a normal, non-shameful part of their lives in positions of clerical leadership.

I hope we can all agree to move on as a church from this dreadful affair exposed in Murphy.

That will need resignations to prove we take responsibility for what happened.

Cardinal Connell should resign from the college of cardinals as a mark of repentance.

The papal nuncio should have been expelled (and it's a disgrace that the Irish government failed to do the right thing).

There should be an investigation in EVERY diocese in Ireland, north and south, paid for by the Catholic Church. Every bishop who took part in a cover up should be named and removed from office.

That would be a start. We can then say to the Irish people, we take this seriously, we take our responsibilities seriously, and we are doing this to demonstrate that we want a fresh start.

Cardinal Brady? Why is he so silent. Give us some leadership Cardinal.

I think it would be much better if the Garda and PSNI had better resourced abuse units where people could bring their complaints. But the problem remains, and you'll see this in the Report, someone's "concerns" don't readily translate into police activity. That case I mentioned above of the teacher - it was four years before the teacher even knew who had brought an accusation. There must be loads of organisations where people had concerns or issues about people and none of it turned into police activity.

I think the nuncio issue is a red herring. The State was advised to use the proper channels and they didn't, they let the matter drop. That's hardly the basis for expelling the nuncio. If the State wants to pursue the matter they are free to do so.

Brady's probably too busy plotting who he can position to fill any potential vacancies. And the likely list of candidates does not fill me with any sense of glee.

Was in Easons there and spotted a book about de Bono's Six Hat method and it struck me that one of the reasons we often make little progress in these discussions is that people are wearing different hats when they write.

Bono wears six hats? Is this a U2 album or something?

It's for his enormous head - needs at least six hats, and makes it easier for the help to steal them

Maybe he does! I bet you wrote the last comment wearing a red biretta, cappa magna, with bra and suspenders to match!