43 Comments

• goldenblade | Dec 06, 2012, 10:48 PM EST

  "Forbidding to marry"is condemned in the Bible as a "doctrine of demons"(1T 4:1-3).What of celibacy of priests? If a celibacy requirement is a "doctrine of demons". (1 Timothy 4:1-3), how can the Roman Catholic doctrine requiring priests to be unmarried be anything but unbiblical and evil? Personally, I don't care if Catholic priests marry or not. But my question is how the late tradition (A.D. 1200's some say) decided by human authorities can override a clear command of scripture condemning such a rule for believers?

• WatchingMedia | Sep 07, 2010, 05:52 AM EDT

  Pope Benedict is the best. God is surely watching over his Church. He only took over as Pope in 2005. Glad he is moving the trash out. Your bias and misquotes make you a poor reporter or getting your news from the rag - the New York Times.

• Carroll09 | Sep 05, 2010, 01:08 PM EDT

  PhlutiePhan- as much as I liked Pope John Paul, he did not "charge like a bull" into the whole abuse issue, which was raging even during his pontificate. In fact, the man leading reform on this issue in the Vatican for several years was none other than Cardinal Ratzinger himself - he was the one who changed the law so as to include internet crimes against children, who facilitated a case by case waiving of the statute of limitations in abuse cases, who personally took charge of cases (and dismissed several priests from the clerical state) where individual bishops (though they had the power to deal with the cases themselves) had been dragging their heels. What the facts ACTAULLY show, and they're facts that Mr O'Doherty and the media generally won't face up to, is that no one has done as much as Pope Benedict to clear up the problem: yes the work is slow - frustratingly so- but it is a big problem, and the Pope has shown himself to be serious about cleaning up the Church.

• PhlutiePhan | Aug 18, 2010, 12:02 PM EDT

  This issue was not handled well by Benedict. JPII would have charged "like a bull".

• Colliegirl | Aug 15, 2010, 05:53 PM EDT

  I don't know how the bishops are used in Ireland. In the US I think it would be quite possible that an auxillary bishop would have no knowledge of or authority over this sort of thing even if it occurred while he was in office. In that case, the pope is correct that those men have nothing to apologize for. In any case, the charism of infallibility only protects the church from the possibility of the pope proclaiming an erroneous doctrine. It doesn't mean he's unable to do something that is unwise or even personally sinful. Personally, I think this present is wise and probably not guilty of deliberate sin.

• Carroll09 | Aug 15, 2010, 04:34 PM EDT

  Infallibility of the Pope when teaching on matters of faith and morals to the Universal Church has been held since Apostolic times...where did the Apostles get that idea from? CHRIST...when He said 1) to the first Pope, Peter: "you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." [Matthew 16], and 2) "When He comes, the Spirit of Truth, He will guide you to all truth" [John 16:13]...Not to mention that Christ thrice commanded to feed His "sheep" - to feed the flock under the guidance of the Holy Spirit which He had promised to send to be with the Church to the "end of the age" [Matthew 28:20].

• jacersisityourself | Aug 15, 2010, 03:17 PM EDT

  LITTLEGOAT, pls get your facts right. The Pope did not declare himself infallible. By a majority vote, the bishops attending the Ecumenical Vatican Council 1869-1870 (called Vatican Council I since the 2nd one was held in the 1960's) declared the papacy to be infallible only when he speaks ‘ex cathedra’. The Council merely declared something that was widely believed since first discussed at another Council of the world's bishops in the 3rd century AD. Only one Pope since 1870 has declared an infallible teaching, Pius XII in 1950 when speaking about the Assumption of Our Lady into Heaven. Ironically, today August 15th, is the Feast of the Assumption of Our Lady and it is celebrated not only by the Roman Catholic Church all over the world but also by the Orthodox Churches on this very day. Saying that a pope is setting himself up above God is also false. We Catholics believe that the Pope is guided by God through the Holy Spirit of Wisdom when utter teachings. In other words, every Pope is always subservient to God’s wisdom.

• GeorgeDillon | Aug 15, 2010, 03:00 PM EDT

  It's interesting to see how many of the Irish are adopting the Paisleyite language of hate and prejudice. 30 years ago they would have laughed his Bible Belt demagogery, now they parrot it. The Irish have no moral tenets or precepts or deeply-felt beliefs. For a few years they bought into the belief that Money was GOD, but now they have no money, and no God. They have nothing by which to direct their actions. They're ruled by crooks and gangsters, but they haven't the guts to shake them off and do away with them. They're a pretty contemptible lot, aren't they? Snivellling and spineless. Find some backbone, you idiots!

• WoundedKnee | Aug 15, 2010, 02:26 PM EDT

  The Irish people who are screaming loudest now should ask themselves: How come I (or my parents) didn't raise my voice at the time this stuff was going on? Irish people knew full well that places like the resideential schools were hell-holes, yet they kept their mouths shut The grade school teachers were in a majority of cases lay (and militant trade union members!!!), yet they equalled or surpassed the clergy in their brutality. I remember an old-timer who had in his working years delivered bread and milk to one of those places telling me how he knew full well that evil and fear stalked the insatitution. When I asked him how come he didn't do something he said "Sure we were all afraid". Maybe the Irish are just as spineless and worthless as their clergy? At any rate, that's my impression of the Irish today, they have as much fighting spirit as a slug, so I guess that's how their parents and grandparents were too.

• LITTLEGOAT | Aug 15, 2010, 09:21 AM EDT

  i read that in 1869 the then pope declared he was infallible thus setting himself and future popes up above god. the reasons this was done is horrible but this truth was not taught me in 12 years of catholic schooling so many coverups the worst is not protecting children absolutely contrary to jesus christ.

• Carroll09 | Aug 15, 2010, 05:16 AM EDT

  You are still ignoring what the report ACTUALLY says. It is clear that the situation was NOT THE SAME through the whole period investigated by the Commission. Barbara Blaine talks of salt being rubbed in the wounds of victims - firstly she is wrong to say the two bishops were "complicit" (the report does not agree); secondly, ALLOWING those who were not condemned in the Murphy Report to be punished should be what rubbed salt in the wounds of victims. Ms Blaine does not give the impression that she is looking for justice. It sounds more like she wants a few Catholic heads on plates.

• hollabackgurl | Aug 14, 2010, 07:25 PM EDT

  They were auxiliary bishops in Dublin when the Murphy Commission found that sexual abuse of boys was "endemic,"and that the perpetrators had been protected by the Roman Catholic Church hierarchy. They resigned at the urging of Dublin Archbishop Diarmuid Martin, who demanded that ~some~ accountability be shown in the wake of the poor judgment and oversight detailed in the devastating Murphy report on clerical sexual assault and abuse, which endured for decades. Abuse survivors called on Bishop Walsh to resign not because of the way he handled individual cases but but because has was “part of the regime that facilitated abusing priests to carry on abusing and did nothing to stop it or expose it." Bishop Field said he accepted everything in the Murphy report and defended his own decisions and inaction by explaining that he did not have "all the facts" due to a "deficit of the sharing of information in Archbishop's House." Reacting to Archbishop Martin's announcement, Barbara Blaine, president and founder of the U.S.-based Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, issued a statement saying, "By rejecting the resignations of two complicit Irish bishops, the pope is rubbing more salt into the already deep and still fresh wounds of thousands of child sex abuse victims and millions of betrayed Catholics.

• Carroll09 | Aug 14, 2010, 05:27 PM EDT

  Hollabackgurl- Clearly they are guilty in your mind,but in justice they are not guilty.You are refusing to look at the facts and are continually spinning the story that Walsh and Field were enabling abusers to continue their crimes. READ THE MURPHY REPORT instead of giving us the report according to hollabackgurl-it simply doesn't agree with you. In Murphy 1.22 there is a list of auxiliary bishops whom Murphy found knew for many years of the complaints of abuse -Bishops Walsh and Field do not feature on this list. In Murphy 1.47, Judge Murphy lists the auxiliary bishops who "dealt particularly badly with complaints" and there is NO MENTION of Bishops Walsh or Field. You say they were "part of the culture of abuse and coverup in the Irish Church" as if this "culture" was the same for the period investigated by the Murphy Commission- however, the report is clear that "in the mid 1990's, light began to be shone on the scandal and the coverup" [Murphy Report, 1.113].

• hollabackgurl | Aug 14, 2010, 11:16 AM EDT

  People who enable abusers with the knowledge they'll reoffend are culpable and should resign. Enabling abuse is as bad as the abuse itself. To suggest that it isn't, or to split hairs about their degrees of culpabilty is reprehensible. These men were part of the culture of abuse and coverup in the Irish church. They are as guilty in my mind.

• specksmom | Aug 14, 2010, 10:04 AM EDT

  Why does anyone continue to have faith in the Catholic Church? Why are they even still in business?? The abusers should be behind bars and their twisted ways should be put to an end. If they can't revise and join the rest of the 21st century, then let the people show them what's right. Take a stand.

• WoundedKnee | Aug 14, 2010, 05:28 AM EDT

  Carroll09: Excellent post. And note how holaback subsequently backed off from her disgusting claim. These men are guilty of incompetence, they are guilty of maladministration, they are guilty of all sorts of things, but they are not guilty of abuse, contrary to O'Doherty's dirty lie.

• JOHNTOBIN | Aug 14, 2010, 02:50 AM EDT

  I would like to remind glorybe1929 that the Catholic church wrote the bible in the first place.

• hollabackgurl | Aug 14, 2010, 02:18 AM EDT

  Either way, they enabled abuse to continue by looking the other way. That's what the Murphy Commission made clear.

• Carroll09 | Aug 13, 2010, 05:02 PM EDT

  Hollabackgurl - given that the article is about the auxiliary bishops Walsh and Field, the headline "If abuse won't cost your job in the Church, what will?" certainly DOES infer that they are guilty of abuse. The headline clearly does not fit the story. But saying "If failing to take adequate action doesn't cost your job in the Church, what will?" doesn't create as much of a stir...don't you know that old media trick - why let truth and balanced reporting get in the way of a juicy (though unfair and possibly libellous) headline.

• knowthyself | Aug 13, 2010, 03:33 PM EDT

  This is a perfect example why the church is on the decline people are leaving by the thousands churches are closing. By actions like this. I say everyone should stop supporting and giving money to the vatican.Hit them in the pocketbook. maybe they will wake up. and stop the corruption. there is nothing Holy about the Vatican. its a House of Evil with evil men in charge it should be called a House of Satan.

• hollabackgurl | Aug 13, 2010, 03:10 PM EDT

  The article does not infer they abused anyone, I take it to mean they were implicated in the Murphy Commission for failing to take adequate action. Then the Church failed to relieve them of their posts (when even they had seen fit to offer their resignations).

• GeorgeDillon | Aug 13, 2010, 03:01 PM EDT

  "If abuse won't cost your job in the Church, what will?" What a disgustingly mendacious headline, sadly typical of this columnist. These two men abused nobody. Retract your filthy slur, O'Doherty.

• double11 | Aug 13, 2010, 01:49 PM EDT

  pope and church suck the scumbags

• ripley838 | Aug 13, 2010, 11:50 AM EDT

  Abuse won't cost you your job, but calling the abusers to account will. Benedict should resign.

• corkkerry | Aug 13, 2010, 11:30 AM EDT

  Drop a note in the collection plate. Clean up your act; then get back to me.

• JamesMurphy | Aug 13, 2010, 11:19 AM EDT

  The best thing to do is ignore the Vatican altogether. It's an institution stuck in the Dark Ages, e.g. celibacy, male-only priests, marriage not allowed. Dear oh dear, what a ridiculous outfit.

• KathyCallahan | Aug 13, 2010, 11:16 AM EDT

  The Pope in concert with Ray Field and Eammon walsh wrote the Irish Catholic church's Death Knell.

• Godscre | Aug 13, 2010, 10:37 AM EDT

  'Holy Father'? Jesus was humble, and loved the Body of Christ. He became angry to protect His Father's church to be a house of prayer. St. Paul, and St. Peter loved the Body of Christ. Beware of wolves in sheeps' clothing. Let the Holy Spirit teach us and lead us. It's time. Archbishop Martin is to be commended for being a 'whistle blower' by telling the truth, when the Vatican should be transparent, yet they still want to keep things secret (ie. resignations denied, etc.). Everyone, will be held accountable. God is the final judge.

• Portia777 | Aug 13, 2010, 09:33 AM EDT

  That is correct the Roman Church sacred texts say that raping women and children is not breaking their law.So, these men of god have themselves covered on all sides. Remember to them rape and abuse is not a crime, in fact their logic will tell you the child asked for it and is to blame. The woman is accused of tempting the male. The logic of it all is crazy.The male is so supreme, yet he cannot help himslef from being tempted by innocent children and eve ill women. This all male cult wears the same clothes as the ancient priestesses of the temples, yet it despises women. This all male cult hates the sacred feminine yet built its churches on the sites of the Goddess- Pagan temples. This all male cult despises women yet uses the same ceremonies that Mary Magdalene taught Jesus when she initiated him into the rite of sacred alchemy. She annointed him in the ancient rite of christos. Yet the "bible" tells us Mary Magdalene was a whore- but the true word is HORASIS-the ancient sexual rite of union of male and female energies which was bestowed upon the male by the female priest. Such a shame these men in dresses have been lying for thousands of years in order to keep sheeple under control

• Carroll09 | Aug 12, 2010, 07:20 PM EDT

  Hollabackgurl - Dr Martin did not say he had no confidence in the auxiliary bishops:he called on those who were criticised in the report to "take responsibility"- this could mean resignation, but that isn't the only way to take responsibility. Dr Walsh was not found to have acted inappropriately- your insinuation that having "held key positions" in the archdiocese would have given him knowledge of what was going on is not supported by the report: do you realise the extent of the lack of communication that is outlined in the report? The report is clear that even Dr Field's actions were restricted because of this lack of communication. Also it is also wrong to claim that victims have asked for "all those who were part of the governance of the archdiocese when sexual abuse was being covered up to resign"- because they have asked for every head but one: that of Diarmuid Martin. Dr Martin was governing the diocese for at least 18 months of the period of investigation, yet no one asked for his resignation. Why? Because he is (rightly) perceived to have done what he could. Others who were found to have done their best with the information they had are being blatantly scapegoated. Maybe that's justice for you; it certainly isn't for me. By the way,one of the most heavily criticised bishops in the report, Cardinal Connell, has just disappeared- if anyone knows what the auxiliary bishops knew and did not know, it is him, yet those who have put so much pressure on the other bishops have allowed him to remain silent. Again, this doesn't seem like the actions of those who are truly seeking justice and truth.

• hollabackgurl | Aug 12, 2010, 10:57 AM EDT

  Bishops Eamonn Walsh and Ray Field were among clerics in Dublin accused in the official inquiry of failing to tell the police about cases of alleged abuse by priests. Dr Diarmuid Martin, the archbishop of Dublin, has made it clear that he no longer had confidence in them. Are you - like the Vatican - saying they're all wrong? Victims have asked for all those who were part of the governance of the archdiocese when sexual abuse was being covered up to resign, and this was ignored yesterday.

• hollabackgurl | Aug 12, 2010, 10:50 AM EDT

  Dr Walsh has been an auxiliary bishop in Dublin since 1990. Before that, he was secretary to the Archbishop of Dublin from 1985 and would have held key positions in the archdiocese for much of the period covered by the Murphy commission report. Meanwhile, Dr Field, a qualified barrister and auxiliary bishop in Dublin since 1997, was found not to have fully informed a parish priest about abuse concerns against a colleague.

• Carroll09 | Aug 12, 2010, 10:14 AM EDT

  Hollabackgurl said: "These two bishops, auxiliary or not, were involved in the cover up of abuse against children". I'm afraid the Murphy Report doesn't agree with you there, so please stop giving your fanciful revisionist version of history. Certainly, Bishop Field was criticised somewhat in the report, but it is clear that it wasn't because of coverup on his part, but a terrible lack of communication in the archdiocese. Bishop Walsh was found to have acted correctly in dealing with complaints - he was NOT involved in a cover up. The Report is clear on that. Is your anger with the fact that innocent men have been vindicated and returned to their jobs or is it that two INNOCENT CATHOLIC BISHOPS have been vindicated and returned to their jobs? Does TRUTH or JUSTICE feature at all in your mind or has your hatred of what you believe the Catholic Church to be clouded your conscience?

• barneyjo | Aug 12, 2010, 09:28 AM EDT

  The analagy of "Nero fiddling when Rome burns" comes to mind!!

• hollabackgurl | Aug 12, 2010, 09:01 AM EDT

  These two bishops, auxiliary or not, were involved in the cover up of abuse against children. It beggars belief that they can simply be reassigned without consequence.

• jacersisityourself | Aug 11, 2010, 08:54 PM EDT

  @Verum68 – Cardinal Law is not in a jewel of a position. Though having the name of Bernard Francis Cardinal Law, he is really just the titular administrating Parish Priest of a church in Rome called in Latin language Santa Maria Maggiore (SMM) – in English it means Saint Mary Major. I’ve visited Rome many times – from my first time as a “doe-eyed” tourist to a “now I get it” kind of experienced visitor. The Church of SMM is one of the founding churches of Christianity in ancient Rome (Google or bing it for its history – it’s fascinating). Like I said, I’ve visited Rome many times. The ordinary people of the city Rome are amongst the least-likable un-Christian-like people that I’ve met in all my travels through various cities of the world. Bernard Cardinal Law has one of the toughest jobs in the world, working in this parish amongst the un-liked people of Rome. And people think he has a cushy job? Get real, find truth. He has being “punished” for his former mistakes by a trust that he can still do a good administrative job. Now, let me think back – where did I see that before? Good administrators? Ah, yes! Presidents Clinton and Bush – both now titular co-administrators of the Haiti disaster recovery efforts. Didn’t they both cover up some rotten stuff too for the common good of their country? What a lousy job those boyos have, working for a corrupted country. ‘Course, I’m not allowed to say anything about corruption in the grand ol’ US of A.

• jacersisityourself | Aug 11, 2010, 07:58 PM EDT

  Aside from that below, may I highlight Cahir’s last para above? – “This morning the Pope made it clear they really didn't need to apologize for anything”. Though Cahir wrote it with sarcasm, I hafta say that it was true sound judgement by the Pope and his advisors, including ordinary people of the RCC in Ireland who wrote letters to the Vatican (I didn’t). And while I’m at it – may I highlight Cahir’s Headline - “If abuse in the Church won’t cost you your job, what will?” Let me ask Cahir, he a declared gay man, “If, as a Gay person, abusing another person of the same sex, or being abused by another through un-natural acts, and shouting your head off in the media or sash-shaying (as ICentral’s Megan Finnegan once said) musically and comically like a circus through streets of local communities to push their agenda, that that is ok, would that lose you your job?” Clearly not - Cahir doesn’t apologise for his abusive homosexual behaviour or the abuse he hurls at those who would disagree with his agenda. What would it take to have Cahir O’Doherty lose his job?

• jacersisityourself | Aug 11, 2010, 07:46 PM EDT

  Carroll09 says it in truth for me, though I would not use such aggressive language. Journalists like Cahir O’Doherty (whom I’d admire as a writer if it were it not for his abuse of his position as a journalist to propagate pro-LGBT stuff) tend to rush to the hot presses without out checking names and facts. I don’t know much of Bishop Field but I do know of Bishop Walsh. No one who knows of his priesthood and bishopric could deny he did not deserve to be forced into offering his resignation by bloodhounds. He is one truly fantastic Christian and administrator. In my opinion, the Pope was right to reject his offer to resign and if Pope Benedict decided that for Bishop Walsh, he’s probably been right for Bishop Field. Cahir is therefore, imo, totally out of order to declare (para 2) that “it’s completely unsupportable”. Gimme a break!

• Verum68 | Aug 11, 2010, 05:57 PM EDT

  I'm not surprised given the jewel of a position the Pope gave to Cardinal Law. I feel a great sadness for the Church I once loved and respected.

• Carroll09 | Aug 11, 2010, 05:31 PM EDT

  You clearly have not read the report, Mr O'Doherty. Bishop Field certainly did NOT preside over any diocese in Ireland- he was an AUXILIARY bishop, and the report shows that their position was most certainly not a powerful one. As for Bishop Walsh in Ferns (I presume it's Walsh you meant, not Ryan?), he was sent there after Bishop Comiskey resigned in disgrace, and he cleaned up the diocese so well in terms of child-protection that it is now used as a model of how things SHOULD be done, both inside and outside the Church. The Murphy Report did not find fault with Bishop Walsh's actions. Your lack of facts is disgraceful. You feel you can rant about how things have not changed with the Church, but what has changed with reporters such as yourself? Nothing - you are still looking for scapegoats. To hell with the facts. To hell with truth. To hell with justice.

• glorybe1929 | Aug 11, 2010, 04:44 PM EDT

  How could anyone, who has belonged to this church, imagined anything different than what the Pope has done for as long as he has held this office? Cardin- al Law getting a promotion to the Vatican for the evil he allowed. The same goes for all the rest of the Popes for millenium(s) We must not be surprised, as we've been hearing this stuff for ten years now. My husband and I left the church we were married in on our 50th wedding anniversary in 2001. Everything we had heard from our relatives who were of the religious of the RCC, came back to us and said,"what they told us was true and we didn't believe them" But now we do believe them and all the rest of the crap we are hearing is true. This RCC is not a church of God but of the devil. After we left the church, we found out that our church of St. Maria Goretti, in Scottsdale , Az. had 5 pedophiles.(not all at the same time) We knew them all and would have gladly vouched for them all but one. God is still on His Throne and the RCC will go down to hell where it belongs. He will help you and me, if we still obey His Word from the Bible. (not from the catholic bible)

• hollabackgurl | Aug 11, 2010, 03:30 PM EDT

  I've sat at my keyboard for the last five minutes trying to find a way to wrap my head around the Pope's unbelievable decision. I can't do it, I'm utterly speechless.

• jamieLM | Aug 11, 2010, 03:02 PM EDT

  This is truly pathetic. The Pope has sent a clear message to the pedophile priests still out there-"here's your free pass, straight from Rome." Benedict will be remembered in history as a total disgrace and a "spine-less wonder" in this whole sorry saga of sexual child abuse by priests and it's systematic cover-up. God help us.