Pub Guide
Pope Benedict snubs Dublin's Archbishop Martin for new cardinal list
Posted on Friday, January 06, 2012 at 11:53 AM
Larger Text
Print
E-mail
43 Comments
RSS 
Recent Posts
- Bobby Kennedy should be ashamed of himself over his dead wife -- Successful effort to keep her remains from her family was disgusting - VIDEO
- Liberal media slamming Mitt Romney unfairly for actions in high school -- What’s next a demand that he apologizes for passing gas?
- Why do Irish media lynch mob want Cardinal Sean Brady to resign?-- Brady acted in good faith at the time investigating a notorious pedophile priest
- A crazy mixed up world in American politics -- Who can really tell left from right these days?
- Can Christine Quinn keep Gays and Irish Catholics happy in her run for NY mayor?-- Her outreach to Catholics and holding on to her core gay vote is a major multitask
Archives
 |
| Archbishop Diarmuid Martin and Pope Benedict |
Surprise, surprise, no red hat for Archbishop Diarmuid Martin, the outspoken head of the Dublin Archdiocese, in Pope Benedict's latest list of new cardinals.
Martin is far too honest, straightforward and unable to play the Vatican game to be made a cardinal of course.
No doubt if Martin had kept his mouth shut and made the usual apologetic noises without ever slamming the institutions of his own church he would have been seated in the next conclave.
That was never to be with Martin showing forensic honesty and addressing the root causes of the massive child abuse scandal that has so badly damaged the Catholic Church in Ireland.
In the process, Martin has become the most popular clergyman in Ireland, but a pariah within the corridors of power. The Vatican even walked back his decision to suspend two auxiliary archbishops for their roles in alleged cover ups.
Martin's forthright statement when the Cloyne diocese cover-up was exposed almost definitely ended his hopes pf promotion.
‘There may be a cabal in Cloyne’, admitted Dr Martin. ‘They may have friends in other parts of the Irish Church. They may have friends in Irish society. There may be friends in the Vatican. ‘The numbers that are involved in this are few. The damage that these people cause is horrendous. '
-----------------
Read more:
New York Archbishop Timothy Dolan elevated to cardinal by Vatican
More news stories on the Vatican from IrishCentral
Casey Anthony releases first YouTube video - no mention of daughter Caylee - VIDEO
-----------------
Reading the list of cardinals, it is striking how many are current members of the Curia, essentially civil servants, who have made all the right bureaucratic moves and have now reached the pinnacle of achievement outside of being named pope.
Ironically Martin was one of those Curia members before being dispatched to Dublin to stem the rising crisis there.
But once in Ireland he stopped being a man of the Vatican and became a man of the people instead.
Which is why he will never be a cardinal under this pope at least.
See more: Vatican, Pope Benedict, Diarmuid Martin, Catholic Priest
43 Comments
15 - 43 | See all comments
stephen1553 | Feb 03, 2012, 02:31 PM EST
test msg
Report abuse
cynicus | Jan 28, 2012, 05:16 PM EST
I see this 'snub' as another begrudging and unchristian 'recognition' of the honesty, humility and righteousness of Archbishop Diarmuid Martin. Obviously he is not duplicitous and dishonest enough for promotion!
It would be worse if his reputation were to be ruined by being appointed as another yes-man cardinal to parrot the party line from Rome!
The Vatican is probably the oldest secret society in existence. After 2.000 years of perfecting its worldly self-preservation, it is apparent that truth and honesty- the teaching of Jesus - have been well and truly suppressed in the interest of a worldly corporate, financial and devious political dictatorship.
Archbishop Martin must at all costs steer clear of being aligned with the 'spooks' and 'crooks' in the Vatican Secret Society.
Report abuse
EditorCT | Jan 14, 2012, 02:51 PM EST
I don't hate anyone, eiramach, and I'm not trying to wreak vengeance on anyone. But I'm puzzled at your attitude. After all, if you think that one religion (or none) is as good as another, why not "tolerate" those of us who think differently?
As for your claim to deal in "substance and facts" -I'm afraid I don't see any substance and no facts in anything you've written so far. However, I respect your decision to end the discussion. God bless you.
Report abuse
eiriamach | Jan 14, 2012, 08:25 AM EST
Like I said earlier, EditorCT, tolerance is not your métier! Perhaps you've won over some people who are searching for the one-and-only true cult of the one-and-only true religion. But as for me, I work with substance and facts, rather than generalities, and I'm particularly disinclined to discuss who hates and wants to wreak vengeance on whom, so I'm done with this discussion.
Report abuse
EditorCT | Jan 13, 2012, 03:33 PM EST
eiriamach,I did not come on here pushing any website. I didn't even provide a link to our website. I merely mentioned it in passing. I rather think that might fall under the heading of "freedom of speech." I believe you said somewhere that you are not a Catholic, which explains why you are so hostile to authentic Catholicism, favouring instead contemporary "reformers" in the school of Martin Luther et al. If you understood anything of the nature and purpose of the Catholic Church you would know how far removed from the truth are your assertions.
I have not tried to "silence" you - I merely responded to your comments to correct your false understanding of Catholicism. If words mean anything, then the Catholic Church has to be understood as she describes herself, not as her enemies describe her. You did not write facts about our website - you gave a prejudiced view of our website that reveals you to be a homosexual sympathizer (one of the four sins that cry to heaven for vengeance) and a supporter, as I've just said, of modern day Protestant reformers like the members of the ACP. There is nothing on our website that contradicts Catholic doctrine and morality. That, I'm afraid, is your problem. By expressing your hatred of the content of our website, you reveal your hatred of Catholic doctrine.
Report abuse
eiriamach | Jan 13, 2012, 07:09 AM EST
EditorCT: again I explain for the benefit of people like you who use these blogs to advertise their web sites along with religious rationales for their narrow-mindedness: I have a strongly American sense of freedom of speech. As I wrote below, the Internet brings folks like you out to places like this. You have the right to spout your venom here, but when you do, please remember that everyone else has the same freedom of speech that you exercise. And some of us are motivated by a sense of moral obligation to reply to the bigotry that others spew on the Internet. If, indeed, God "blesses" me soon, there are many others like me, who are offended by your willful blindness to the documented facts of history, your intolerance, and some of us are willing to say why these are offensive. You have the right to speak and to write, but no right to silence others who disagree with you. Name-calling does not drive us away. I wrote below accurate facts about the web site you're pushing; people should be warned about the slants, distortions of history, and multifarious biases lurking there. "Nasty"? Maybe. But "ignorant"? No, and easily verifiable.
Report abuse
EditorCT | Jan 13, 2012, 06:58 AM EST
eiriamach, since you don't (I presume) know or appreciate my sense of humour I ought to make clear that when I refer to "my opinion of YOU" (in my previous comment) I restrict my opinion to the facts about your beliefs/lack of truly Catholic beliefs. I have no idea about you, as a person, and I am sure that you are a very nice person. There's no law says you have to like me, and you clearly don't, but I don't want to break my lifetime record of never saying that I dislike anyone - I disagree with you (and all "liberals") about what is going on in the Church, but that isn't personal. I'm straight-talking in the newsletter reports and editorials, as you know, and I LOVE to annoy the mods, but it's not personal. I just that I have character defects and I'm not afraid to use them - true - but I wouldn't want you to confuse that with personal nastiness. I don't know you, as a person, but most people are nice enough on a personal level. You've told me your views on the state of the Church, the ACP and other matters, so that is in the objective data domain and I am therefore free to tell you that you are way off the wall when it comes to understanding the true nature and purpose of the Church and the priesthood. However, I shouldn't have given the impression that I had an even worse opinion of you than you have of me, because that is misleading. I don't know you but I like you enough to tell you that if you ever visit Scotland, avoid eating haggis. It's not what it's cracked up to be!
Report abuse
EditorCT | Jan 12, 2012, 08:02 PM EST
eiriamach
Nobody who has bought into the Modernism now gripping the Church will like Catholic Truth - either the publication of that name OR the doctrines of the Church. Anyone who thinks of the ACP as "a reform group" (assuming they have any right to reform anything but themselves) is missing the point. The ACP want a new "Church" - they don't like the one established by Christ. Not to their liking. At least you think my "attacks" on those daft clerics were "vituperative" - that's cheered me up; I'd been thinking I was too lenient on those scoundrels so thanks for that. And to describe the SSPX as either "anti-Semitic" or "schismatic" is to show the same desperation that we see in Protestants who insist that it can't be right to pay for Confessions. Nope, you got that right, I tell 'em, cept we don't pay for Confession. Ditto your nasty and ignorant remarks about the SSPX. NOw, don't tell me... you've also swallowed the propaganda about Pope Piux XII and the Jews haven't you? Now, how did I know that? Your entire post is chock full of ignorant and unsustainable allegations. Which is why you chose to end on an even weaker note by personal insult. You say that I give you "the creeps". Luckily for you, I have no intention of sharing my opinion of YOU with the world. The internet might crash! God bless you, eeriemuck, and soon!
Report abuse
eiriamach | Jan 11, 2012, 01:16 PM EST
In case someone with literary sensitivity is tempted to critique the next-to-last sentence I wrote below, let me add that I really enjoyed mixing those metaphors! I was inspired by a visit to the Catholic Truth web site, a religious hodge podge as edgy as any I've seen, and I've seen a few!
Report abuse
eiriamach | Jan 10, 2012, 11:09 PM EST
LOL! I'm not a papist of any description, EditorCT. Your website is, at first glance, ridiculously anti-ecumenist, savagely anti-gay (you seem not to be able to use the word *gay* without putting scare quotes around it), anti-Catholic Priests Association of Ireland (a reform group), with particularly vituperative attacks on Frs. Tony Flannery and Brendan Hoban, and radically anti-reform. You claim "nothing short of a full restoration of the Traditional Latin Mass will end the liturgical chaos in the Church," and in general you insist that Catholicism can never do anything new, except that it should canonize the anti-Semitic SSPX organization's founder, Marcel Lefebvre! Schisms, heresies, and superstitions of the wildest kinds, along with triumphalism with regard to the Reformation and clericalism with regard to the priesthood, abound in your publication. The Internet provides everyone with a forum, so the splits, fissures, and fractures in today's Catholicism are coming out of their closets, and some of them are way out there on the edge, like yours! You give me the creeps, EditorCT.
Report abuse
EditorCT | Jan 10, 2012, 04:11 PM EST
eiriamach
The only people who could possibly think I'm a sedevacantist are those people who are totally uninformed.
Let me ask YOU a question, eiriamach. Are you a papolatrist? I ask because people who think popes are above and beyond criticism, (papolatrists) often mistakenly think anybody who is properly educated about the extent (and limits) of papal authority are anything ranging from "disloyal" right through to sedevacantist.
Silly beggars.
Report abuse
eiriamach | Jan 10, 2012, 01:35 PM EST
I tend to think of women as more in touch with the real world than EditorCT seems to be. But whatever.... Now as for the other facts, is EditorCT not a member of one of the many sedevacantist groups that Catholicism harbors? Doesn't EditorCT believe that there has not been a legitimate pope on the chair of Peter since Pius XII?
Report abuse
EditorCT | Jan 10, 2012, 12:42 PM EST
eiriamach,
you really need to get your facts straight. Start with this one. "He" (EditorCT) is a "she".
Report abuse
SeamusMartin | Jan 09, 2012, 07:00 PM EST
Firstly, I must be very thick, because I cannot understand a single word from IrelandNorth... or does that make me normal? Secondlly, Martin's a freakin hero!
Saving children or being a Cardinal we ALL know what's right. Maybe the Vat should think long and hard, then should ask itself, "What would Jesus do?" Hey maybe some philanthropist can finance a shipment of those colourful plastic/rubber bracelets that have the letters "WWJD" to Pope Benedict and he can give them to all his cronies. Course with all the wealth at the Vatican he'll prpbably just make his own bracelets that say "WDPD" (What does Pope do?). Thirdly, if Martin had enough interest, maybe he could get an appointment with the World Series Champ the St. Louis Cardinals baseball team or the up n coming Arizona Cardinals football team! Sla'inte.
Report abuse
Most Popular News Stories
Most Popular Blog Posts
Report abuse