There are good priests and bishops in Ireland today - Naming three men who have made a major difference
Posted on Monday, July 25, 2011 at 03:54 PM
RSS 
Recent Posts
- Profile in Irish fighting courage - Heffernan’s campaign for respite care for families dealing with fatal rare illnesses such as Batten’s disease
- Senator Schumer says Irish deserve a separate deal for visas because of 1965 shutout - Says “Schumer visas” set to give Ireland 10,500 visas a year for the future
- Prospects for immigration reform bill are 50-50 say the pols privately - House seen as major obstacle as Senate gets closer to a vote
- Chilling testimony before congressional hearing on Pat Finucane death - New hearings told how informer was murdered before he could give evidence
- U.S. Tourism Ireland chief Joe Byrne says goodbye and hello again to massive acclaim - Popular Carlow native led tourist figures to Ireland to historic heights
Archives

A truly pastoral church is what is needed in Ireland today, one responsive to the wishes of the people rather than a bureaucracy in Rome at the Vatican.
The church in Ireland has long been divided between the Celtic and Roman affiliations.
The Celtic church adherents stress the pastoral nature of the church, the need to be at one with their flock and deal with the problems that arise on the pastoral level. It is locally based and grounded.
That is the traditional message of the Irish church as first expressed by St. Patrick who brought the faith to Ireland.
Current Dublin Archbishop Diarmuid Martin recognized that reality soon after coming back from Ireland to Rome and focused on the core message of regaining the faith of those who had been abused and those appalled by that.
He took over from the dense philosopher Desmond Connell who was all at sea with the pastoral role and allowed the evildoers to run amok.
The Vatican did all in it power to cover up its scandals under Connell but Martin was having none of it.
He was a very determined Irishman. standing with the most vulnerable against the powerful, including many of his own colleagues.
He understands that what the average parishioner thinks, rather than what a Vatican Curia member wants to cover up is far more important in Ireland today with the church on its knees.
The former Bishop of Killaoe in Clare, Willie Walsh was a similar figure, one who came down from the ivory tower and who confessed openly to doubts about his faith but who strove at all times to be human and caring.
Another one, Father Iggy O'Donovan, is one of the finest priests I have known.
He officiated at my mother's funeral mass and is a long time friend of my family.
He loves to call a spade a spade as he did when recently speaking to the Drogheda Independent.
When the issue of seal of the confessional came up Iggy was typically direct.
‘ There was a huge issue made of a report that priests may now have to report things told in the confession box but everyone seems to have ignored the obvious, people hardly go to confession anymore,’ he stated.
‘ Who will be impacted by this proposed rule, very few, believe me,’ he continued.
As to the ramifications of the report from Cloyne into the church's malfeasance Iggy calls a spade a spade
He feels the latest report into the Church and its handling of abuse is more serious than all the rest.
‘I don’t think it’s finished yet and I speak for myself when I wonder am I part of an inept and incompetent institution.
‘People have been saying to me how can all this have happened and I know it will hit mass numbers more.’
"However, the damning part is that the Church did not keep to its own guidelines, never mind the State.
‘Did we forget that abusing a child is wrong, no matter about guidelines?’
‘All that seems like another world when you read the likes of the Cloyne Report,’ he stated
‘There was blind loyalty to the institution and the need to avoid a scandal at all costs. The irony is that all that caused an even bigger scandal and the hierarchy now has an incredible lack of street credibility’.
His belief is that the Church is on borrowed time.
‘You could say it’s a bit like Fianna Fail (Formerly Ireland's main political party almost wiped out in last election over scandals) . It’s a culmination of things that led to a backlash. I fear the Church will be hit by one report too many.
‘My feeling is sadness, most of all for those that suffered. The cover ups were the biggest sins of all.’
Iggy knows what the Watergate conspirators knew and the Vatican can never seem to learn-- its the cover up stupid.
If the church in Ireland had more men like Donovan, Martin and Walsh it would all look very different.
37 Comments
15 - 37 | See all comments
JuneAnnette | Aug 01, 2011, 01:12 PM EDT
Collette2, some additional thoughts for your consideration***The Apostle Paul did not believe Peter was chief; in fact: (a) Paul mentioned Peter more than once but he never mentioned him with any special title of honor, such as vicar or pope, or gave any indication that he held him above any of the other apostles. (b) Paul taught that those who attached themselves to Peter (or to any other apostle or person) as a distinct group were guilty of schism, because Christ is the head (1 Cor. 1:12-13; 3:22). (c) Paul did not mention the papacy when referring to the officers of the church (1 Cor. 12:29, Eph. 4:11). (d) Paul as an apostle claimed authority over the Roman church itself (Rom. 1:5-6; 16:17). (e) Paul was “behind the very chiefest apostle in nothing” (2 Cor. 12:11-12).(f) Paul expressly denied that Peter was the pope and further maintained that whatever Peter was to the Jews, he, Paul, was to the Gentiles. This certainly is incompatible with any idea of a pope in Paul’s day (Gal. 2:7,8). (g) Paul rebuked Peter without any mention of Peter’s supremacy (Gal. 2:11).[1] If Peter was chief, it was the duty of Paul and of the apostles to recognize him as such, respect him as chief and teach in their writings that he was the chief; but neither the gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, the epistles nor the Revelation ever mention it.[2]Sources: 1) Joseph Zacchello, Secrets of Romanism (Neptune, NJ: Loizeaux Brothers, 1948), 43-44.; 2)James D. Bales as quoted by Zacchello, 44.***CHRIST is the HEAD of HIS CHURCH!***”And he is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he may hold the primacy:” (Colossians 1:18: Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible)
Report abuse
Collette2 | Jul 31, 2011, 08:43 PM EDT
JuneAnnette, just love the quote and exposition of Cornelius.
Report abuse
JuneAnnette | Jul 31, 2011, 11:15 AM EDT
I offer the concluding remarks of Richard Bennett, Biblical Apologist and former Roman Catholic priest, and whom I regard as my “brother in the Lord”, taken from his timely article entitled: 'The Papal Claim to Have the Keys of the Apostle Peter' in which he expounds Matthew 16 . . . EXCERPT: Whatever his contemporaries apprehended Christ to be, this text of Scripture plainly shows that the disciples had a distinct knowledge of Him, expressed without hesitation by Peter on their behalf. The Lord attributes this intuitive knowledge that He was “the Christ” (Anointed-Messiah) and “the Son of the Living God” (co-eternal with the Father and therefore likewise God) to be a revelation from His Father in heaven. It is this revelation, the Lord declared, that would become the rock or foundation stone upon which He would build His Church. This cannot be argued against as it is the very concluding subject of the Lord’s charge to the disciples, “Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.” To hold the view that Peter himself is the rock is to deliberately pervert the plain sense of the Lord’s own words. To infer that the Church was built upon a mere man—and not upon God’s revelation of Jesus as the Christ, the Son of the living God—is to insult Christ’s doctrine and corrupt God’s Word." God's Word as it is found in Ephesians 5:23 "For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church; and he is the saviour of the body." Source: BereanBeacon
Report abuse
JuneAnnette | Jul 31, 2011, 11:05 AM EDT
The Roman Catholic "popes" not only accept, but demand, such homage, even to the extent that men, including the cardinals, prostrate themselves on the floor before a newly elected pope or when making ordination vows before him and kiss his foot. Also the popes accept the title of "HOLY FATHER" as theirs as a matter of right. Was Peter ever called by the title "HOLY FATHER"? It is not uncommon to read of dignitaries and heads of state who prostrate themselves before the pope and kiss his ring.
Roman Catholicism is not the bride of Christ, but the wh_ _ re as depicted in God's Word in Rev. 17 & 18 ! The Lord Jesus Christ is the only head of the true Christian Church and not some pretender to the throne! It is to CHRIST ALONE that true Christians revere and bow before, and to whom in love, they willingly submit in obedience . . "If ye love me, keep my commandments." (John 14:15)
The pope . . the cardinals . . the bishops neither command or inspire trust. Quite simply, they cannot be trusted. The Bible alone inspires implicit TRUST because it is God's Word and He cannot lie! ( Heb. 6:18) THE TRUE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST IS GOVERNED BY AND SUBJECT TO THE WORD OF GOD, NOT THE POPE!
Report abuse
JuneAnnette | Jul 31, 2011, 11:04 AM EDT
The whole notion of papal succession, papal authority and papal infallibility is papal bull! Their outrageous assertion of power over the true church of Christ is an invention of ROME and is altogether alien to the Word of God, to which Christ's true church is subject. Their claim that Peter was the first pope is wholly unsupported by Scripture.If Peter was the first pope as Rome alleges, why is there no mention of it in the New Testament? Surely, on such an important matter with respect to the church, the Apostles would not have remained silent! If Peter was the first pope as Rome alleges, why was there no deference shown to him? Surely the other apostles would have accorded him some special / preferential treatment befitting his high office, yet we read of no such thing in the writings of the New Testament. Rather, we read of an instance where Paul rebukes Peter. (Galatians 2:11) If Peter was the first pope as Rome alleges, why did he reprove those who sought to revere him, as in the case of the centurion Cornelius as recorded in Acts 10:25-26:“And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him. But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself am a man.” The humble spirit Peter exhibited who rejected such a gesture does not comport with the spirit of Rome's popes.
Report abuse
JuneAnnette | Jul 31, 2011, 11:03 AM EDT
“Tell a lie long enough and people will believe it.” Such is the case with Rome's claim of absolute papal rule! The doctrine of the infallibility of the pope is a relatively "new" doctrine. It was carefully defined by the Vatican Council which met in Rome in 1870. Here is their definition: "...we teach and define that it is a dogma divinely revealed that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith and morals to be held by the universal Church, by the divine assistance promised him in blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed that His Church should be endowed for defending doctrines regarding faith and morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church."What the not so holy Roman Catholic “church” knows about faith and morals I could put on a post it note. Why would anyone take their cues regarding faith and morals from these rogues and miscreants?
Report abuse
Collette2 | Jul 31, 2011, 02:34 AM EDT
Gearoid, youv'e forgotten Simon Magus, sometimes one has to wonder if we haven't got the two Simon's mixed up with such attrocities committed in our name and in the name of God.
Report abuse
Collette2 | Jul 31, 2011, 02:18 AM EDT
Captain... as Catholics, it's a terrible burden, and to even harkin the church to SS officers is a blight but pertinent.
Imagine what they've got away with for centuries, it beggars belief, we just have to hang there making spiritual communions.
Report abuse
Gearoid4 | Jul 30, 2011, 10:24 PM EDT
@eiriamach,
It is a complement that you mistake me for Carroll09, as he is a very eloquent defender of Catholic Christian orthodoxy. He rightly points out that a lot of advocates of the 'Spirit of Vatican 11' school of reform are looking for changes that were never mandated by the Fathers of the Council.
Well, JuneAnnette, you continue to spout biblical quotes in a distorted fashion to push your anti-Catholic agenda. Well Jesus did find a single Church and gave the Keys of authority to Peter, Her first earthly leader(Matthew 16:18). One can trace the venerable office of the papacy back to that momentous decision. Down through history there have been popes whose life-styles have given scandal and presently we see that in the revelations concerning priests and bishops. But the reality of the human propensity to sin has been with us in the Church from the first generation of the apostles e.g Peter who denied Our Lord 3 times and St Paul who was a former persecutor of Christians. But Jesus will never abandon His Church and the Holy Spirit will guide Her through Her darkest moments until the end of time.
Report abuse
JuneAnnette | Jul 30, 2011, 01:12 PM EDT
The recent revelations of the Cloyne Report once again affords compelling evidence that it is business as usual in the RCC. The so-called "princes of the church" continue to lie with impunity and instead of telling the TRUTH they have routinely employed the clever tactic of "mental reservation", as they capriciously deem necessary and in order to avoid at all costs . . SCANDAL to both themselves and to “their precious church” . . not to be confused with Christ's church!
The spirit of the bishops is more agreeable to the father of lies, who would be proud of their intellectual and ingenious prowess in conceiving such a diabolical scheme to avoid telling the truth. But from Christ . . “the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6) . . they would only receive his unqualified censure! “Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do, he was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.” (John 8:44) The NOT SO HOLY Roman Catholic "church" is not Christ's church, of whom HE ALONE is the HEAD!
Report abuse
CaptainCon | Jul 30, 2011, 07:23 AM EDT
I'm sure many SS officers stopped to pat a stray dog on the street or gave sweets to a child- does taht count against their membership in such an organisation? Every priest in Ireland has taken an oath to follow instructions, spiritual or temporal, to a foreign absolute monarch, with unquestioning obedience. Every one of them. You want me to look past that? No.
Report abuse
Collette2 | Jul 30, 2011, 05:32 AM EDT
I agree Niall, there are, but if I were them, I'd be taking a sabbatical to prevent contagion, spiritual or otherwise.
Report abuse
Carroll09 | Jul 29, 2011, 05:35 PM EDT
Eiriamach - I am all for the reforms of Vatican II being implemented in their fullness, as long as they are implemented and interpreted in the manner in which the Council Fathers envisaged. However, it is clear that a "reform of the reform" is needed in a few areas - most notably, perhaps, in the area of the Sacred Liturgy, where many changes made (the laity were told) in "the Spirit of Vatican II" were never actually mandated by the council, nor by any document since the council...but I guess that's a discussion for another day.
Report abuse
eiriamach | Jul 29, 2011, 03:40 PM EDT
Yes, Carroll09, I was conversing recently with Gearoid04 on O'Dowd's article "Bishop Magee did Vatican bidding." I apologize for confusing you with the other, though I wouldn't be surprised if it happens again because in some ways you and Gearoid04 are nearly indistinguishable from each other. I agree that the intentions of the great reform council Vatican II have not been realized, but I don't know which ones you think were "hijacked." A Time magazine article written on the eve of the Council's opening in 1962 predicted, fairly accurately, the following items as likely topics of discussion and decision: Episcopal infallibility, structure of dioceses, priests & religious, liturgy, the Church & non-Catholics, marriage, religious liberty, the laity, married deaconate, decentralization, and dogma. They say that it takes about a century to carry out the reforms of a church council, and it has been almost half a century now, but half a century of resistance to reform, "reform of the reform," rather than accomplishment. Now that reform is being forced on the church by the Taoiseach as well as groups of priests and laity in Ireland, the US, Australia, and Austria, perhaps we'll see the pace of change speed up a little.
Report abuse
- Top bishops clash over excommunication of...
- Enda Kenny, not the Catholic Church, speaks...
- Irish leader delivers powerful commencement...
- Irish ‘Mick’ fighter pilot was one of the...
- $104 million Brian Boru biopic set to be...
- Nigerian migrants send $653 million a year...
- Right-wing shock jock Pete Santilli slammed...
- Computer giant Apple avoiding $25 billion...
- Guinness summit? Obama and Putin to enjoy...
- The top 100 Irish last names explained
37 Comments
Report abuse