Irish Bishops Summoned to the Vatican

[NecronLord]

BBC

Ireland's Roman Catholic bishops are preparing for an unprecedented meeting with Pope Benedict XVI at the Vatican.

They have been invited by the Pope to discuss the Irish Church's response to the child sex abuse scandal.

Four bishops criticised for failing to address concerns about abuse have already resigned, but victims say more must be done to restore public trust.

Last year, a report was highly critical of the Dublin Archdiocese's handling of priests who were suspected sex abusers.

The Murphy Commission laid bare a culture of concealment where Church leaders prioritised the protection of their own institution above that of vulnerable children in their care, and all too often failed to pass on details to the police.

The Pope has said he is "disturbed and distressed" by the report and shares the "outrage, betrayal and shame" felt by Irish people.

'Enormous injustice'

BBC religious affairs correspondent Christopher Landau says bishops from a particular country normally visit the Vatican around once every five years.

But the Pope is summoning Ireland's bishops for a special two-day meeting, specifically to address the issue that has severely undermined Catholicism's standing there, our correspondent says.


The Bishop of Clogher, Joseph Duffy (14 February 2010)
The fullness of the truth must come out, everything must be laid on the table
Bishop of Clogher Joseph Duffy

The Report of the Commission of Investigation into the Catholic Archdiocese of Dublin, published in November, found the Church had "obsessively" hidden child abuse from 1975 to 2004, and operated a policy of "don't ask, don't tell".

Some bishops still in office had been part of the cover-up, the report said.

Four out of five key bishops who were particularly criticised have now resigned, but the fifth, Bishop of Galway Martin Drennan, is expected to meet the Pope.

Groups of abuse survivors have written an open letter to the Pope, calling on him to demand the resignation of Bishop Drennan, who has insisted he did nothing to endanger children.

They are also asking the Pope to instruct the bishops "to comply fully with civil child protection guidelines, including the mandatory reporting of all concerns or complaints to the civil authorities for investigation".

On Sunday, one of the prelates said they would acknowledge the "failure on the part of all of us" to be vigilant against abuse and express their commitment to try to rectify "the enormous injustice and cruelty" the victims suffered.

"A casualty of all this has been the truth," the Bishop of Clogher, Joseph Duffy, told reporters at the Irish seminary in Rome. "The fullness of the truth must come out, everything must be laid on the table."

Bishop Duffy said questions of resignation would not be "on the agenda of the bishops because that is not our prerogative".

Our correspondent says Ireland's bishops know that much has to change if the Church is going to regain even a fraction of the standing it had in national life a century ago.

But as elsewhere in Europe, dwindling congregations and a shortage of priests make for further uncertainty about the Church's future, he adds.

If some of these turds in human form are actually excommunicated, I'd be impressed. The smart money says that he won't do anything, though.

[CarsonPalmer]

If some of these turds in human form are actually excommunicated, I'd be impressed. The smart money says that he won't do anything, though.

Excommunication won't really do all that much, because all that's required to get excommunication lifted in any case at all is confession for the sin that got them excommunicated. Probably the worst that will happen is that they get a tongue-lashing and a coadjutor bishop (basically, a second bishop in the diocese; the first bishop keeps the title but gets told that the second guy is really in charge, and he should just stay out of the way). It'd be nice if they were ordered to resign their dioceses, though.

[NecronLord]

There are many degrees of excommunication. The more advanced can only be forgiven by the pope [anathematisation].

[Tiriol]

While excommunication sounds nice, it might be more effective to simply oust them from their positions within the Church. Of course, if they would add excommunication to that, it would send a huge signal to all. But I doubt it will happen. While I have some respect for the sitting Pontiff, I don't think he is ready to rock the boat that much (although I'd like to see a proclamation in which the offending bishops and priests would be "cut from the Church Militant and the Church Triumphant").

[Twigler]

I think it's highly unlikely that anyone will be excommunicated. In this case the worst of the lot would have been forced behind the scenes to resign already (or the ones that got the most negative publicity depending on how cynical you are about this whole affair).
If the pope thinks more heads need to roll, you can expect more resignations, not excommunications. Resignations are less messy for both the bishop and the RC church.

[The Yosemite Bear]

this is Ratzinger, he defended the kiddy jackers in tre US. For him to do anythign to the Irish Bishops would be a bit of hypocracy. Not that it's ever stopped him before....

[Twigler]

And lets not forget that these are just some of the bishops that covered things up. A large number of the actual sick bastards committing the offences are likely to remain anonymous. From the wikipedia article on this whole sordid series of affairs:

As per 2002 agreement between the victims on one side and the Catholic brothers and Irish government on other side, all those who accepted the state/Brothers settlements, had to waive their right to sue both the church and the government. Their abusers' identities are also kept secret.

So in all these investigations both the church and the state forced in a clause that would protect the people responsible for the abuse - just like they've been accused of doing for decades before.

[Darth Yan]

people can change. Pius XI was a raging anti semite in WW1, yet during the 30s he denounced Hitler's anti semitism as wrong. Maybe Benedict genuinely changed. It's possible

[Rye]

BBC
If some of these turds in human form are actually excommunicated, I'd be impressed. The smart money says that he won't do anything, though.

You do know that the RCC doesn't consider Hitler to have done anything bad enough to be excommunicated, right?

[CarsonPalmer]

[ You do know that the RCC doesn't consider Hitler to have done anything bad enough to be excommunicated, right?

Wait a minute, what are we talking about here? The Catholic Church doesn't excommunicate people who don't claim to be Catholic, and although Hitler was raised Catholic, and tried to imitate Catholic ceremonies as a vehicle for Nazism, he was never a practicing Catholic after his teenage years. They didn't excommunicate Stalin, and it was clearly a fault of the Catholic Church that they tolerated fascists to block the Soviets. That's a weak argument against the real faults of the Catholic Church during this period.

[The Yosemite Bear]

did I just see a godwin's law and a no true scotsman fallacy next to eachother?

erm, god is on our side?, and all that stuff, having his own favorite Nazi catholic bishop?

oh and those Martyred carmalite nuns were all polish.

[CarsonPalmer]

did I just see a godwin's law and a no true scotsman fallacy next to eachother?

erm, god is on our side?, and all that stuff, having his own favorite Nazi catholic bishop?

oh and those Martyred carmalite nuns were all polish.

It doesn't matter whether Hitler had pet bishops or not, and I flat-out stated that he used Catholic pomp and circumstance as a vehicle for Nazism. Its not a no-true Scotsmen to say that he wasn't a practicing Catholic, though, and you have to identify as a Catholic to at least some degree for them to excommunicate you. If the Catholic Church was excommunicating people they didn't like and considered to be bad, Josef Stalin would have been at the top of the list. Paranoid fear of communists and socialists pretty much dictated everything that Pope Pius XI and Pope Pius XII did, but they never excommunicated Stalin. You won't get any dispute from me that Pius XI sucked when it came to opposing Nazi Germany, and Pius XII only marginally less so, but you can't say "The Church doesn't even think Hitler was bad enough to be excommunicated", because that's not how they do things. They hated Stalin more than they hated Hitler, but they never excommunicated him.

There are plenty of things to criticize the Catholic Church for during the 1930's and 1940's; why would you use a spurious claim that doesn't logically hold up? Its a lazy argument.

[The Yosemite Bear]

He and Mousillini met with the pope at times, part of the justification that the fascists used for the support of Franco was to protect the church, sure they weren't on board for the whole mass genocide, but they used the church's anti-semitism to assist in their final soclution. Just what fucking part of there were ties between the nazis and the catholic church are you not getting. The fact that the Vatacin was in the center of Fascist Italy ment that Pious had to be sucking up to them frequently.

[CarsonPalmer]

He and Mousillini met with the pope at times, part of the justification that the fascists used for the support of Franco was to protect the church, sure they weren't on board for the whole mass genocide, but they used the church's anti-semitism to assist in their final soclution. Just what fucking part of there were ties between the nazis and the catholic church are you not getting. The fact that the Vatacin was in the center of Fascist Italy ment that Pious had to be sucking up to them frequently.

I'm getting all of the fucking ties. That doesn't mean that Hitler was a person who could be excommunicated. That's my goddamn point. "The Church didn't excommunicate Hitler" is a pathetically lazy argument because it doesn't make sense, and wasn't going to happen even if they were bitterly and utterly determined to fight him to the death...as shown by the fact that they didn't excommunicate Stalin. Is it really that hard of a concept to understand? I understand that there were ties between Hitler and the Vatican, and that the Vatican did very little to oppose Hitler's anti-semitism and had no problem with the concept of dictatorships in Europe as long as it let the Catholic Church keep doing things their own way. That doesn't mean that any criticism of the Catholic Church in that period, no matter how nonsensical, gets to stand. Excommunicating Hitler wasn't going to happen even if Pope Pius XII found some balls and called him a demon to his face, because he did not fall into the class of people that the Catholic Church excommunicates.

[K. A. Pital]

They didn't excommunicate Stalin ... If the Catholic Church was excommunicating people they didn't like and considered to be bad, Josef Stalin would have been at the top of the list

Pardon me? Stalin was since long but a schismatic to them (he was Orthodox). He never had any ties with the Catholic Church to begin with. If anyone could "excommunicate" or otherwise condemn him, that would be the Orthodox Church, not the Catholic one.

But the Catholic church excommunicated ALL communists it could:

The Decree against Communism is a 1949 Catholic Church document (by Pope Pius XII) which excommunicates all Catholics collaborating in communist organizations. The document resulted in one of the largest formal excommunications in the history of the Catholic Church (it could include more than several million Catholics).

How about the Divini Redemptoris? The excommunication of Fidel Castro (who basically proclaimed himself an atheist despite being baptised into Catholicism) - who never practiced Catholicism? Hitler was raised a Catholic, even if not a practicing one, just like Castro. What is the difference?

I think your argument actually proves the opposite - the Catholic Church never gave a crap about excommunicating Hitler, but not because it had no valid grounds to do it.

That doesn't mean that Hitler was a person who could be excommunicated

He was. See above.

[The Yosemite Bear]

it's not like they haven't excommunicated others in politics, and that was along with the close ties between church and fascists that I sited puts your no true scotsman fallacy to rest.

hell they've even tried to excommunicate Kennedy's for being tolerant of others and supporting laws they don't like here in the US.

[Siege]

You have to be baptised (part of the communion of Christ) to be excommunicated in the first place, because you can't be thrown out of an organization you're not a part of. Hence why Fidel Castro could, but Josef Stalin could not be excommunicated. (As far as the Church is concerned it doesn't matter jack if you don't consider yourself a member anymore -- the RC Church is a bit like the Cosa Nostra like that; when you're in, you're in for life. Maybe it's an Italian thing. )

For the record, Adolf Hitler had already excommunicated himself for a whole range of crimes against the Catholic faith. An excommunication is not a sentence that necessarily needs to be proclaimed by a bishop or the pope; it's more a state of being. A person automatically incurs a latae sententiae excommunication for being an apostate, heretic or schismatic; for procuring abortions; for using physical force against the pope, and for several other offences. Most of these don't apply to Hitler (as far as I know old Adolf never threw a consecrated Eucharist in the trash), but the charge of apostasy I imagine sticks. Pius XII therefore didn't have to proclaim him excommunicated, because as far as the Church was concerned he already was.

Having said that, it would of course have been nice if they'd been more clear on the subject, and they certainly could have been. Although frankly Hitler wouldn't have given a crap, and might have retaliated against the Church, so all things considered I doubt it'd have done anyone any good.

[K. A. Pital]

You have to be baptised (part of the communion of Christ) to be excommunicated in the first place, because you can't be thrown out of an organization you're not a part of. Hence why Fidel Castro could, but Josef Stalin could not be excommunicated.

Yeah, Stalin was already a schismatic (Orthodoxy is a schism and hence he can't be excommunicated) - unlike Hitler or Castro, both raised as Catholics though never practicing. Moreover, Castro already fell under the 1949 excommunication of all communists without regard, but the Church still specifically excommunicated him, indicating that this ritual held significant political value. As far as I know, Hitler was baptised as a Catholic, therefore liable for excommunication.

I agree that:

Although frankly Hitler wouldn't have given a crap, and might have retaliated against the Church

was a quite realistic reason why they never excommunicated him.

Postmortem excommunications are a no go, right?

[Tiriol]

I agree that:

Although frankly Hitler wouldn't have given a crap, and might have retaliated against the Church

was a quite realistic reason why they never excommunicated him.

Postmortem excommunications are a no go, right?

I do believe so, although there has been popes crazy enough to go for that as well. I think that the Church thinks that once someone is dead, there's not much point to excommunicate them any more; if they are just in the Lord's eyes, their souls are already in the hands of God, and if not, well, they are already at the place where the Church would have liked to send them to, so why bother with the whole excommunication?

[Thanas]

Hitler actually was quite afraid in his early years of the church, after all they were a very sizable force in Weimar politics. Which is why he made quite the effort to court them in the 1930s and why the actions of Bishop Galen were quite a shock and a threat to them. Which is also the reason why they gave in when Galen started preaching against their practices. The lessons from the Kulturkampf were well learned, after all.

Of course, once WWII had started and especially at the end of it, the Nazis did not really give much about the church back then.

[Siege]

Postmortem excommunications are a no go, right?

I believe in Medieval times it was occasionally done, so there's precedent for it, but I don't think the Church has done so in recent times. It's also pretty pointless from an RC point of view; according to Catholic dogma excommunication is not a "vindictive penalty" but a "medicinal penalty", and the intent of declaring someone excommunicatio is to hopefully get them to give up their wicked ways and mend fences with the Church. If someone's dead, they can't very well repent and return to full communion.

Incidentally if you look at the list of publically decreed excommunications (excommunicatio ferendae sententiae, as opposed to the automatic excommunications or excommunicatio latae sententiae), you'll find the vast majority of them are priests and other Church officials. In a sense the Decree Against Communism is pretty extraordinary in the 20th century, because it doesn't just condemn this or that bishop, monk or priest for going against Church dogma, but instead targets a whole bunch of people who happen to be both communist and Catholic at the same time. You could say the Church had a bee up its bonnet when it came to communists back then.

[CarsonPalmer]

Pardon me? Stalin was since long but a schismatic to them (he was Orthodox). He never had any ties with the Catholic Church to begin with. If anyone could "excommunicate" or otherwise condemn him, that would be the Orthodox Church, not the Catholic one.

But the Catholic church excommunicated ALL communists it could:

The Decree against Communism is a 1949 Catholic Church document (by Pope Pius XII) which excommunicates all Catholics collaborating in communist organizations. The document resulted in one of the largest formal excommunications in the history of the Catholic Church (it could include more than several million Catholics).

How about the Divini Redemptoris? The excommunication of Fidel Castro (who basically proclaimed himself an atheist despite being baptised into Catholicism) - who never practiced Catholicism? Hitler was raised a Catholic, even if not a practicing one, just like Castro. What is the difference?

I think your argument actually proves the opposite - the Catholic Church never gave a crap about excommunicating Hitler, but not because it had no valid grounds to do it.

You're right. I made a very poor argument in this thread, but Siege has made a much better one, so I guess I'll defer to his argument.

On excommunications, there has been one postmortem excommunication, but that was back in the Middle Ages, and took part as place of a truly bizarre "cadaver synod" in which one pope dragged the corpse of his predecessor into some sort of a makeshift courtroom, held a trial of the dead body, and then excommunicated him. I doubt anybody will ever repeat that particular performance.

And to support Siege's point that the vast majority of excommunications by name are carried out against priests, there have only been two non-priests to receive that treatment in the entire 20th century: Castro and Juan Peron. And the last non-priest before those two was Napoleon, who physically threw the pope in jail. So its a pretty rare thing.

[Twigler]

To get this thing back on track even though by Godwin's Law it should die.

A few highlights from:
http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0217/abuse.html

Archbishop of Dublin Dr Diarmuid Martin has said the meeting between Pope Benedict XVI and Irish bishops in the Vatican in recent days was part of a process.

Speaking after an Ash Wednesday Mass at UCD, Dr Martin said the meeting will be followed by a pastoral letter and other things will happen, but not everything could happen right away.

He said the letters received from survivors were presented to the Pope, and they will be looked at.

Note that the pope didn't meet with any of the victim organisations for talks. "They will be looked at" sounds to me like "we'll wait for this one to blow over a bit".

Drennan will not resign - spokesman

A spokesman for the Bishop of Galway, Dr Martin Drennan, told RTÉ News tonight that he would not be resigning from his position.

Bishop Drennan has been under pressure from organisations representing victims of clerical child sexual abuse to tender his resignation to the Pope.

I guess covering up abuse isn't a reason to resign. It was probably all a big misunderstanding . Drennan has indicated that he doesn't want to "betray" his Galway diocese by standing down. (quotes mine)

Survivors of abuse near 'despair'

The Rape Crisis Network has said victims of clerical sex abuse are in a 'state of almost despair' today following the outcome of the meeting between Pope Benedict and the Irish bishops.

Executive Director Fiona Neary said victims she had been speaking to this morning were deeply disappointed that the Pope had not accepted the responsibility, which she said the Vatican had in relation to child sex abuse in Ireland.

Irish Survivors of Child Abuse welcomed that the Pope finally acknowledged that paedophilia within the church is a 'heinous crime'.

However, it accused the Pope of failing to show strong leadership in tackling this crisis.

Clerical abuse survivor Andrew Madden has called for an urgent meeting with Dublin Archbishop Diarmuid Martin to find out why issues raised by victims were not addressed by the Pope.

This is starting to look more and more like a really bad Father Ted episodes, bumbling priests talking about ecumenical matters while ignoring the facts from the reports.

[The Yosemite Bear]

Since the pope defended the scum in the US under the previous pope, there's not much he's likely to do about the situation in Ireland.

[Siege]

He certainly does continue the Vatican tradition of keeping the better part of the dirty laundry behind closed doors:

As the Roman Catholic Church prepares to celebrate the penitential rites of Lent, during which the faithful beg forgiveness for their sins, an unprecedented act of private penance has been held behind closed doors at the Vatican.

Pope Benedict spent two days in one of the Vatican's sumptuous marble audience halls closeted with 24 Irish bishops who both individually and collectively confessed to him their shortcomings and omissions in the paedophile clergy scandal which has shocked the entire Catholic world.

Cardinal Sean Brady, the Catholic primate of all Ireland, who led the delegation of bishops, said afterwards that "at this time of penance, we must begin with ourselves".

None of the bishops addressed the substance of the Vatican meeting at a hastily convened news conference at the offices of Vatican Radio.

The proceedings were - like most Vatican business - conducted in total secrecy, but we know from the official Vatican communique issued at the end of this extraordinary crisis meeting that the Pope strongly condemned the child abuse scandal which has been the subject of an official Irish government inquiry, the Murphy report.

Since the pope defended the scum in the US under the previous pope, there's not much he's likely to do about the situation in Ireland.

I beg your pardon, but even though I have no particular love for Benedict XVI or indeed the RC Church, I have to ask how you arrive at the conclusion that the current pope "defended" sexual abusers in the US? During his visit to the USA in April of 2008 he addressed the problem of sexual abuse in the American Church four times. He met with victims of sexual abuse, in itself something I don't think any pope before him has done. In a Mass at Washington National Stadium he said that "no words of mine could describe the pain and harm inflicted by such abuse". During a similar Mass a few days later in Saint Patrick's Cathedral, NYC, Benedict called for a 'cleansing' of the Church.

If you argued that the RC Church should have done more, and should've acted quicker, to expose the abusing bastards and kick them out of the Church, I'd be right there with you. But you're claiming he's outright defending paedophiles among the American clergy, and I don't think I quite agree with that sentiment. He's done more to combat sexual abuse than any of his predecessors, and whilst that is indeed a matter of damning him with faint praise, it's hardly fair to say he's defending the rotten perverts among his flock.