Sainthood for Australian nun who exposed Irish pedophile priest
Published Wednesday, September 29, 2010, 8:04 AM
Updated Wednesday, September 29, 2010, 8:38 PM
Larger Text
Print
E-mail
80 Comments
Sister Mary MacKillop
In 1871 Sister Mary MacKillop exposed a pedophile Irish Catholic priest in Australia and was excommunicated. Now she is being canonized as Australia's first saint.
Sister MacKillop, a co-founder of the Sisters of Saint Joseph, discovered that children were being abused by Father Patrick Keating in Kapunda Parish, near Adelaide in South Australia. She reported it to the other co-founder of the Josephites, Father Julian Tenison and Keating was sent back to Ireland where he continued to serve.
A friend of the pedophile priest, Father Charles Horan, swore revenge on Sister MacKillop and she was excommunicated after for years as a nun by Adelaide's bishop Laurence Shiel who was originally from Wexford. She was left on the streets with no money.
On his deathbed, five months later, Bishop Shiel absolved the punishment and restored her to the sisterhood.
For the past 25 years, Father Paul Gardiner has advocated for Sister Mackillop's canonization. Speaking to the Irish Times he said that Father Horan was working for Bishop Shiel who had urged him to break up the Josephites. When Sister MacKillop refused she was banished. He said "She submitted to a farcical ceremony where the bishop had . . . lost it."
“He was a puppet being manipulated by malicious priests. This sounds terrible, but it’s true.”
Archbishop Philip Wilson, in 2009, 100 years after her death, apologized to Sister MacKillop and the Sisters of Joseph.
He said "On behalf of myself and the archdiocese, I apologize to the sisters . . . for what happened to them in the context of the excommunication, when their lives and their community life was interrupted and they were virtually thrown out on the streets . . . This was a terrible thing.”
Following Sister MacKillop's reinstatement she became well known for her work with disadvantaged children, female ex-prisoners and prostitutes.
In 1995 she was beatified by Pope John Paul II following a decree made by the Vatican in 1961. According to the decree a Sydney woman was cured of leukemia through the intercession of Sister MacKillop. During the mid-1990s a woman was sent home from hospital with inoperable lung and brain cancer but she was cured.
In 2009, Corkman, David Keohane was beaten almost to death in Sydney. He woke from his coma last March and his family says his recovery is due to their praying to Sister MacKillop.
Steve Carey, a Keohane family friend said "All we can really say is that faith in Mary MacKillop helped them to get through this."
Sister MacKillop was born in Melborne in 1842 to Scottish parent. She died in Sydney in 1909.
80 Comments
15 - 80 | See all comments
Carroll09 | Oct 11, 2010, 06:16 PM EDT
...He knows where I am going to end up: I do not- I know where I hope to end up, and that is why I try to serve the Lord as best I can. But that doesn't change the fact that I have free will: I can choose to follow or reject God at any point. God has given us what we need for heaven, but it's also by their own actions that some will not reach heaven. Death was the goal of Christ's life- and the pharisees were plotting to have Christ put to death long before Satan "put it into the heart" of Judas to betray Christ. Ultimately, as Christ said, it would have been better for Judas if he (Judas) had never been born. Also notice that Judas knew that he had a choice - he did not claim that God or Satan had forced him to betray Christ. He said: "I have sinned in betraying innocent blood". As Romans 14:12 says, all will have to give an account of their actions before God; or 2Corinthians 5:10: "We must all appear before the judgement seat of Christ, so that each one may receive recompense, according to what he did in the body, whether good or evil". This is hardly the sort of thing a just God would demand of souls if He had been "pulling the strings" all along and if they had no free-will in their actions.
Report abuse
Carroll09 | Oct 11, 2010, 06:15 PM EDT
Barneyjo- firstly, I certainly did not intend to imply that you had judged my views as heretical, & may I thank you for your most gracious responses to what I have posted. However, I would argue that the points that I have made, by virtue of the fact that the Catechism has generally been my foundation in making those points, are not really open to interpretation. The Church is clear on the position of priests celebrating the sacraments while in a state of mortal sin: they are valid. The Church has taught this since the heresy of Donatism in the early 4th century. Onto Judas- Judas came into the world, like all of us, that we might know, love and serve God. The idea that Judas was in some way "enlightened" and acting for a greater good has never been the teaching of the Church- in fact it's a heretical idea which even St Irenaeus (born in the early 2nd century) rejected in "Against Heresies" book I, ch.xxxi, as did other Church Fathers such as Epiphanius of Salamis. God's knowing that we are going to do something does not mean that He is the cause. A skilled seismologist may predict a major earthquake, but when it comes to pass it's not the seismologist who's to blame! God has superior knowledge to humans, but knowing what people are going to do doesn't mean that He created a race of programmed robots...[continued]
Report abuse
barneyjo | Oct 11, 2010, 06:04 PM EDT
[Bishop Lee - contd]With this in mind, I must give some consideration to Bishop Lee's alledged Statememt. Again, like yourself, I was somethat amazed by the tone and content of these remarks (which I have not heard to be confirmed as yet by the way); especially so, given his very Senior position in the Irish Bishops Conference. The question surely arises "why he (may have) said that, and why now?" Was it a pressured response, given the audience he was addressing (telling them what they wanted to hear) or perhaps, it was more profound than that. Perhaps the expression of a deeply held view that for some reason he has felt compelled to express. Why would that be? Why break ranks with his Brother Bishops on this most controversial issue? Regrettably I cannot answer this question definitively, but certainly have a sense of why it might be!! Christ may have had a change of mind or heart, and humanity is just beginning to see the outworking of this in the world. Consider this.Christ has, on occasions, chosen to make his displeasure about how the earthly church was being poorly run. Padre Pio for example recalls instances of his encounters with Christ in Visions where he vented his anger; on one occasion Pio recalls Christ referring to the Church Hierarchy as Butchrs "See what they have done to my beloved Church. Were it not for the Angels, I would have destroyed them all long ago" (Pio was silenced by the Pope for these and other utterances as you are aware)So, before we dismiss these and other utterances as "Liberalism personified" I take the view that we should at least be open to the possibility that Christ MAY!! wish to take the Church on earth along at least a marginally different path!!
Report abuse
barneyjo | Oct 11, 2010, 01:21 PM EDT
Carrollo9, please dont think for one moment that I consider your views as heresy. I merely make the point that as the Church currently encapsulates a broad sweep of interpretation and thought on these matters some may consider your views in a particular way. In terms of my "liberal" (your description) treatment of your viewpoint, I regret that you should consider it so. I merely poised a series of questions based upon my own recent reflections of the impact of my Churches teachings on my growth and development as a practicing Catholic. We can obviously agree that child abuse by anyone is a sin both against God and against humanity.In the case of Judas, I pose the question that, on the one hand, the Church teaches that the betrayal of Jesus by Judas was an act of malice, of evil, yet on the other hand, the Gospels clearly show that Jesus was fully aware of the intent of Judas. Now, if this be so, did Judas commit this act purely on his own volition, or was it pre-ordained as part of a process by which as you say to "bring Souls to Christ?"
Report abuse
Carroll09 | Oct 10, 2010, 07:54 PM EDT
Barneyjo- if anyone thinks my views are heretical, then perhaps they need to check the definition of heresy, because I have not said anything contrary to the constant teaching of the Catholic Church - indeed, I have always referenced my claims to the Catechism, the Code of Canon Law or other Church documents. I think you have developed some of my points rather liberally though, so I can't quite agree with your summation of my position. I don't mean to take away from the seriousness of the crime of abuse, but can you take abuse specifically out of the picture for a moment, and call it for what it is on a purely spiritual level - a grave sin: it offends God. Abuse is certainly a heinous sin (as well as being a crime in Church and civil law), but there are other grave and heinous sins which hurt our Lord immeasurably that are not considered sins in today's secularised world - God's response to sin is love; a world that has largely lost its sense of sin can hardly respond to it in the same way as God. Are we judging what God's response SHOULD be from the world's view of justice and forgetting that while God is love, He is also just and exacting? If you want to see just how much God will do even for the most despicable sinner: look at the crucifix, for as St Paul said, "God proves His love for us in that while we were still sinners Christ died for us". As I said before, for the sake of the spiritual welfare of the people, not the sake of the priest who is illicitly celebrating the sacraments, the validity of the sacraments (all other things being equal in their celebration, of course) will be ensured in order that the Church will prosper in her mission to bring souls to Christ.
Report abuse
barneyjo | Oct 10, 2010, 07:38 PM EDT
The case of Judas Iscariot is also an interesting anomaly. On the one hand, I was taught from an early age that this man should be reviled as he gave Christ up to his enemies for his silver. True he took his own life, true he returned the money. However, consider this. At some point in his life, did Judas not become an instrument of will and part of the great plan to lead man back to God. At what point did Judas become that instrument? Was he an arbritrary choice along the way? Was he born to this task? The Gospels clearly tell that Jesus did everything but name Judas directly when referring to his betrayer. So, if Judas was indeed an instrument of will with a part to play, surely he is one of the most wrongly maligned characters in history!! "Thy will be done on earth as it is in Heaven" we say this as part of the Lords Prayer. Can we accept this premise? If so can we equally apply that same premise to the case of a Priest abuser; born to be an istrument of will whereby his entire life of ministry, and his life of sin are the outworkings of a great plan? Include in this the ruination and damage of children; those who Christ called "most precious" Is Christ in this, I ask again?
Report abuse
Carroll09 | Oct 10, 2010, 07:12 PM EDT
...As a young Catholic, I believe that Bishop Lee couldn't be more wrong- I want ORTHODOXY, and I think that's what Catholics are crying out for. We want to know what our Church stands for, and we want our bishops and priests to teach us what it stands for! Now, rant over...to answer your question, Barneyjo, Bishop Lee can literally say what he likes - it is not wise to do so, given his position of course - but abuses, or wishing doctrines away cannot nullify doctrine. As a matter of fact the topic of women priests is really closed, since Pope John Paul's definitive, infallibly declared document "Ordinatio Sacerdotalis". In addition, the Venerable Pope Pius XII declared in his 1950 encyclical "Humani Generis" that if a pope expressly makes a judgement in his official documents on a matter up to that time under dispute it can no longer be considered a question open to debate by theologians: it falls under the promise of Christ "He who hears you, hears Me". Therefore, despite what Bishop Lee may think on a personal level, not only can it be said that Rome has spoken on the matter, but Christ Himself has spoken. As I say, his comments are regrettable and unhelpful, but they cannot change the example of Christ, the Apostolic teaching,or the teaching of the Early Church Fathers which, thankfully, the Catholic Church has held and taught faithfully for 2,000 years.
Report abuse
Carroll09 | Oct 10, 2010, 07:12 PM EDT
Barneyjo- with regard to the alleged statement of Bishop Lee, it is certainly regrettable. Indeed it is rather worrying for a man who is currently secretary of the Irish Bishops Conference, and a former member of the Commission for clergy, seminaries and vocations. Comments such as what he allegedly said are certainly not going to inspire vocations! I think his diocese has about 3 seminarians- for an overall population of about 150,000. Compare that to Bishop Bruskewitz's diocese of Lincoln, Nebraska, for example - a Catholic population of about 95,000 Catholics but about 40 seminarians. Or Cardinal George's diocese of Chicago- a Catholic population of 2.5 million Catholics, but well over 300 seminarians. How is this happening? I would venture to say that Cardinal George and Bishop Bruskewitz (and others thankfully) are strong in their teaching of the Gospel as given through the ages by the Catholic Church. Other bishops, while charged with the same task as these bishops, give the Gospel according to Bishop x,y or z, or they tell people what they THINK they want to hear...[continued]
Report abuse
barneyjo | Oct 10, 2010, 07:08 PM EDT
I think, and obviously concur with the view that ultimately Christ can and will work through whomsoever Christ chooses.History clearly shows that the most unlikely individuals have been called upon to be instruments for the prosecution of Gods plan; from Paul right through to Bob Geldof (and all those in between!!) However, to come back to the point made about the validity of sacraments administered by a Priest Abuser. If I understand you directly, you are of the view that Christ can and does use the faculties of even a Priest Abuser to administer sacraments and the Gospel, even though those same faculties are used to sate more base and malign human instincts?......So Christ exhorts those of evil and malign intent to ministry with wilful knowledge of their past, present, and future actions? Wow!!! You know, I am sure there are some in the Church who may well regard those views as Heresy!! (I do not as I would not pretend to be sufficiently well versed in Canon Law)
Report abuse
Carroll09 | Oct 10, 2010, 06:23 PM EDT
Jacersagain- you raise an interesting point about who can administer the sacraments and in what circumstances. Obviously, there are conditions attached to a layperson baptising: the ordinary minister of the sacrament is the bishop, priest or deacon, but in case of necessity any person (even a non-baptised person) can baptise another if (according to the Catechism #1256) "he has the required intention. The intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes, and to apply the Trinitarian baptismal formula. The Church finds the reason for this possibility in the universal saving will of God and the necessity of Baptism for salvation". What is in question is not the sinful state or even the unbaptised state of the one who baptises, but the good of the soul of the one who is baptised. Because the salvation of souls is the mission of the Church, a laicised priest can validly and licitly absolve the sins of one who is in danger of death (Can.976). Just on a point of information, in the Latin Church, the ministers of the sacrament of Matrimony are the spouses - according to the Catechism (#1623) they mutually confer the sacrament on each other by expressing their consent before the Church. However, for the valid celebration of the sacrament a bishop, priest or deacon must normally be present (Canon 1108).
Report abuse
Carroll09 | Oct 10, 2010, 05:58 PM EDT
Barneyjo- Where do you draw the line? Is it just abusers that Christ won't work through? The bottom line in this, from a spiritual point of view, is mortal sin, an act which gravely offends against the love of God. We know some repent - St Peter did; and I guess that's the difference between Peter and Judas, one repented and the other didn't. But God works in the sinner even before repentance comes about - we need God for contrition, but only the individual themselves can repent. Perhaps God gave Judas the "tools" for contrition and repentance: he gave back the blood-money didn't he, and we can be sure that if he had gone one step further and begged pardon of God, he would have been forgiven. If you bring it down to the common denominator, i.e. a priest who is in a state of mortal sin (it may be because of abuse, it may not), can Christ work through him for the good of the souls of the faithful? I think so. Obviously it doesn't take away from the sin that he is committing, whether it is abuse or not, which is why the Lord will surely work through even the weakest souls as He sees fit, and the civil law should work on the non-spiritual side of things.
Report abuse
jacersagain | Oct 10, 2010, 04:19 PM EDT
(...Cont’d) If I was rambling alone in the remoteness of the mountains, forests or beachside cliffs of Ireland (which I do sometimes) and came upon a lone unconscious person who may have had an accident or a fall, what should or would I do? Obviously, my first concern would be for the welfare of the person but I, as a Catholic, would also be concerned for that person’s spiritual welfare. I might follow the roadside priest’s example (mentioned below) in assuming that the person was not baptised and use water from my water bottle to baptise the person in the name of the Father, The Son and the Holy Spirit, in recognition of that person’s soul before God. Given that I am an ordinary man of the street and a sinner, would that make my baptism of the unconscious person invalid? I think not, since I’d have done it in the Name of the Trinity. This is why I believe that Carroll09’s points on validity of the Sacraments administered by abusing priests override barneyjo’s points. I think Sr. Mary MacKillop might also agree. I look forward to her elevation to Sainthood next Sunday and the future benefits that it will bring to me and countless others.
Report abuse
jacersagain | Oct 10, 2010, 04:13 PM EDT
On the point of the rightness or wrongness of an abusing priest to administer the Sacraments, I have to agree with Carroll09’s views. All the holiness of the seven sacraments comes from God when called upon by ordained priests. The only sacrament that I, and others as ordinary Catholics in the street, can administer is that of Baptism. One time in Dublin, I came upon a terrible road accident; a man lay dying on the roadside. It happened close to a Catholic church and someone ran to the church and summoned a priest there while an ambulance was on its way. I watched as the priest knelt and said prayers over the dying man who was unconscious but still breathing at the time. What astounded me was that the priest first sprinkled water over the man’s forehead and recited the words of Baptism, then he recited the words of the Sacrament of (then called) Extreme Unction (today called the Sacrament of the Sick). For years after, I wondered why Baptism was first performed by the roadside priest. I learned later that the priest took the appropriate steps as an ordained priest kneeling over the unconscious dying man on the roadside. He had to assume the man was not baptised, then first baptise him and then administer the Sacrament of Extreme Unction. Thus the man’s soul was saved even if his life wasn’t. The priest was fulfilling his ministry in doing so. If I may, I’ll now transpose that factual scene to a hypothetical one. (Cont’d ...)
Report abuse
jacersagain | Oct 10, 2010, 04:03 PM EDT
I’ve been following this superb exchange of posts between Carroll09 and barneyjo with great interest. I jump in from the sidelines to ask if barneyjo (Oct 09, 08.03pm) has missed a point I made earlier in raising the possibility that Antinomianism may still exist in the Church despite it being declared heretical. As I pointed out, and as barneyjo rightly says, some priests have abused their position as priests (above us plebeians) to feel it’s a right to do whatever they like to people (including children), given that they may feel, as ordained priests, that they are absolved from all future sin by an ‘ordained state’ of belief in Christ alone for their salvation. The example that I gave earlier in this debate of Fr. Brendan Smyth (Oct 04, 04.20pm), I believe, holds to this. I put it that it is this mistaken belief that has been behind much of the tragedy of child abuse within our Church, even extending to nuns.
Report abuse
- Boston immigration center apologizes to young...
- Irishman John Downey arrested for 1982 IRA...
- Government minister calls for investigation...
- Young Irish woman turned in to U.S. authorities
- Justice Minister hangs on as Shattergate...
- Amnesty International says Ireland’s abortion...
- One in seven people on social welfare in...
- New book ‘John F. Kennedy - Among the Germans’.
- Sleazy secrets and the American Dream of...
- ‘Quiet Man’ star Maureen O’Hara says John...
Report abuse