When he was on the Boston College trip with us, Sam McBride managed to take a few minutes out to interview Tom Hachey, who heads up the Irish Institute there. Today the Newsletter leads with a fascinating story on the College archive they have accumulated of interviews with loyalist and republican paramilitaries over the last nine years. Without going into detail, Haschey tells McBride that “Some of the speculation [on the forthcoming Voices from the Grave from Ed Moloney] is wide of the mark.” Professor Hachey went on to explain where he believes the real value of the interviews (some of them thought to go on for more than 20 hours of fluid conversation) lie:
“The people that we went out and interviewed were not gophers – people who were simply sent out on missions and had no idea who was sending them or why – nor was it the upper echelon, which is to say whomever the leadership may have been on the loyalist side or nationalist side.
“That sort of thing has been done by the BBC, NBC…this was really about the operational level. This first book which will be published does include two very prominent people (David Ervine and Brendan Hughes) – all (in the archive) won’t be equally prominent but all will have played similar roles.
In other words, informed testimony beyond the control of the various paramilitary leaderships…
UPDATE: In the now subscription locked, jpg bound Irish News, Diana Rusk has a slightly more detailed take from Professor Hachey on why the respondents were happy to participate:
Some were comforted by the geographical distance of 300 miles away, while others knew of Boston College and that we don’t have an agenda in Northern Ireland, Professor Hachey said. They also needed to know that we would honour an agreement not to publish any of their testimony until death. The only caveat is that if they give their consent before their death in writing, that would clear us legally.
And further:
“Being a historian I would like to see as much made publicly available as possible and we could put it entirely, digitally, online in the future or with other scholars.” He is conscious not to speculate on the impact the upcoming book and any future accounts on figures like Gerry Adams, who has consistently denied he was an IRA member.
“Overall the project is very important. The history of the Troubles has almost become a cottage industry with about a book a month being published. I don’t think this will eclipse them all but it is a unique approach from all ends of the political spectrum and it’s going to be more informative than other studies have been.”
A genuine debate on the abuse crisis is gaining second wind in the press. Granted that the Pope’s pastoral letter is but one small step, what reforms are needed? The question now is whether the firestorm of disgust and disillusion takes on a political character to equal dealing with the recession, or blows itself out. Giving in to a temptation to stall would allow the conservative forces to regroup, ensuring that little happens beyond some minor internal reforms. Even now the Republic’s political establishment will be wary of taking on the still formidable political machinery of the Church. Veteran Bruce Arnold cries shame on the politicians, right back to the famous vote FG-Lab coalition measure to permit contraception, opposed by Taisoeach Liam Cosgrave himself. Why hasn’t Garret FitzGerald pronounced? Today’s Fine Gael has joined Labour in demanding that the Church hands over schools, but Breda Power argues this would deny parental choice. But does it? The end of clerical power does not necessarily mean secular control. John Cooney, the great polemicist among commentators on religion and a biographer of John Charles McQuaid identifies radical reforms you may have seen before. That “religion-friendly atheist” Ruth Dudley Edwards has a word of compassion for the clergy, not least for the comfort they have given to the bereaved of the troubles. As between Cardinal Brady and Martin McGuinness, guess whom she chooses?
Blogging senior lecturer in law at Trinity College Dublin, Eoin O’Dell, follows up on his Irish Times article today with a link-tastic post at Cearta.ie arguing that Irish Justice Minister Dermot Ahern’s “promised referendum to remove the reference to blasphemy from the Constitution should go further, and entirely revamp the very limited guarantee of freedom of expression”.
Deleting one objectionable word, rather than thoroughly revising the whole gruesome clause, would be equivalent to repairing a single broken slate on the roof of a house which needs complete refurbishment. ... The freedom of expression guarantee in the Irish Constitution is an example of the wrong way to protect free speech. The forthcoming referendum should replace it with something far better suited to the needs of a modern constitutional democracy.
It’s the atavistic fear of Northern Ireland writ large - the fundies are outbreeding the rest of us. It’s not about race, it’s about religion according to Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth?: Demography and Politics in the Twenty-First Century by Eric Kaufmann, reviewed by the son member of the father and son team of climate sceptics Dominic Lawson. Now it’s “hyper-breeding Muslims” and the distortion of the politics of Israel and the Middle East by the over-fertile ultra-orthodox Haredim, to put it in crude Malthusian terms.
“Liberalism’s demographic contradiction — individualism leading to the choice not to reproduce — may well be the agent that destroys it…I cannot see a way out,” wails Kaufmann. The Bible-bashers might observe that their secularist opponents possess the seed of their own salvation from this demographic annihilation — if only they had not forgotten what it is there for.”
Generations of Protestants (notably in Northern Ireland, but also in North America) believed that they were doomed to be driven into demographic oblivion by the uncontrolled breeding of Roman Catholics, and discriminated against them accordingly: but across the world, and for all the Vatican’s strictures, there is now very little distinction in the birth rates of these two great rival Christian tribes.
Cut the welfare budgets and breed more seems to be the gist of Lawson’s message but I don’t think he has NI in mind. Kaufman’s thought is that breeding patterns of one generation aren’t necessarily repeated next time round. Neither quite describes what the problem is: is it oppression by numbers alone or more by belief and culture? In either case, why no discussion of the Chinese or Indians? Locally, is this a slowly dying debate or does it still lie behind every move in politics?
There is a little bit of the feeling of a phoney war to the election campaign at the moment. The candidates are being chosen but the battles at the moment are mere skirmishes as compared to what is to come. Clearly all can change and much will but as the process goes forward at the moment it is looking, on the unionist side, as if the DUP’s position is getting stronger rather than weaker.
The DUP are managing to put increasing distance between them and Irisgate, double jobbing, expenses etc., though all their political rivals may well be keeping their powder dry on those issues to bring them back out in the election campaign proper. Additionally the whispered rumours amongst the political cognoscenti regarding further skeletons in a number of DUP closets have remained exactly that: rumours only.
The DUP have always been characterised by a remarkable level of internal discipline and their recent problems and apparent internal dissent over the devolution of policing and justice seem to have been put behind them. In addition the prospect of an election always tends to unite parties and as such the DUP as in about as good a shape as they can be considering the turbulent 12 months which they have experienced. Of course that is not actually anything like as strong a position as they were in March 2009 let alone March 2007, following the last assembly elections. However, although the DUP have had to lower their sights and indeed have suffered very badly in recent times there is a significant possibility that they could emerge from this election, if not strengthened then at least little damaged: a feat scarcely believable at the height of Irisgate.
The DUP must think carefully about expectation planning and management in this election in order for limited losses to look like triumph. The first thing they cannot expect is anything other than a loss in their share of the vote. With the TUV in play and even a modest revival of UUP fortunes, the DUP must resign itself to loosing many, many thousands of votes as compared to all previous elections apart from the last European one. Hence, it is most unlikely that the DUP website will any time soon return to proudly displaying their percentage of the vote in recent elections.
Although a significant drop in the percentage vote is to be expected and must be factored into any spin surrounding the election, the DUP can be considerably more optimistic regarding hold seats. The likely losses have been massively reduced from the seeming disaster to now maybe only three or four as a worst case scenario.
The DUP have been helped significantly by some of the CU’s choices: As I have mentioned previously whatever Harry Hamilton’s personal qualities it does not look like a particularly good choice to take on David Simpson, especially if there is no TUV candidate. Strangford, North and South Antrim remain vulnerable but on a good day it is possible that the DUP could hold all of them or only lose one or two.
If the DUP can avoid any losses to the TUV, they can present them as serial failures; unable to win an election and although that may be unfair, it will be difficult for the TUV without any representatives beyond local councils. Then the DUP may hope that the momentum which the TUV gained from the European election will dissipate and the party will slowly or rapidly disappear, admittedly leaving many voters still very angry with the DUP for their policy volte face but with no realistic home for their votes other than the DUP.
Turning to their tactics towards the CUs: If the DUP can engineer losing only two seats to them; they can present the much vaunted New Force as having very little relevance. Indeed South Antrim could be explained away as a candidate who has never really gelled with the constituency and who has lost the seat previously. Strangford is even easier to dismiss by reference to the Irisgate factor and the suggestion that the DUP had a close to impossible task there for that reason alone. Additionally if Mike Nesbitt does win (and that prospect is far from certain) he can be presented as not really a typical CU candidate and a man who is semi detached from the rest of the party in much the same way as Sylvia Hermon came to be viewed. If the elections could end with only two CU MPs, the DUP can probably feel that it has been a good election. If, however, they can manage to reduce the losses to one seat and especially if the CUs fail to hold North Down, then the DUP can present the CUs, after all the bluster, spin and hubris, as actually losing relevance compared to the last general election for the UUP. Then the European election would truly have been a Dead Cat bounce.
If the CUs end up with nothing (not impossible) of course then the DUP could indeed be close to a major realignment of unionism in its favour. That is unlikely but such have been the dire predictions for the DUP at the height of Irisgate, that the loss of three or less seats can be presented as a fairly good election for them.
DUP party strategists of course cannot afford to be so sanguine. If the TUV can win North Antrim, let alone if they win more than that, they will remain on the political scene for the foreseeable future: and they probably will survive even if they loose North Antrim. That will make the Assembly elections and holding enough seats to gain the first ministership a very difficult task for the DUP. Against that, if the TUV and CUs do badly then the shroud waving demand that unionists vote DUP to stop a Sinn Fein first minister might be worth wheeling out again; might have an air of credibility and become an achievable goal. Then if the DUP could be back in the position of being larger than Sinn Fein whilst in power sharing with them, Peter Robinson’s long term goal would have been realised.
The other imponderable issues for the DUP are the extent to which voters feel that they still want to punish them for entering power sharing and whether or not the voters feel that the Hillsborough agreement on P&J devolution was a triumph or disaster. The DUP completely misread the electorate last year at the European election and suffered one of their worst recent political debacles; they now seem to think that the electorate will accept P&J devolution but they have been wrong before. Finally of course there are “Events” and if some of the rumours which swirled around the internet and elsewhere at the height of Irisgate were shown to be true at least one other constituency would almost certainly fall: then the situation might become disastrous. Overall, however, there are some reasons for the DUP to feel more confident than they did only three months ago. Being on the way up after a disaster is a more comfortable place than being on the way down into one. Which they will be after the election is still far from clear.
“Yes that brave Irish freedom fighter who stepped onto that treacherous bus with the dangerous crowd of pensioners truly deserves to walk to the dole office to collect his British pounds with his head held high”
“I must say, the ‘traffic jams for Irish unity’ campaign isn’t doing much for me.”
“All these security alerts are basically anti-social behaviour and shows that republican dissidents are much more like their “homie” friends in Brixton than their apologists would have us believe.”
However, despite these flippant dismissals - this incident where crown forces came under fire dealing with a bomb claim outside Newry indicates, while the initial claim may not be dangerous, the intent is very much there.
As the vote drew closer, attention focussed on on Bart Stupak, the Democrat congressman who authored the controversial “Stupak amendment” on the original House bill that placed onerous conditions barring abortion provision from health insurance subsidised by federal funds. The last-minute deal was lashed together, involving President Obama, in order to win over Stupak and several of his allies.
Stupak held a late afternoon press conference announcing his dramatic change of heart, and pledged that he and several of his anti-abortion conservative Democrat colleagues would support the bill after seeing President Obama’s proposed executive order.
Never in modern memory has a major piece of legislation passed without a single Republican vote. Even President Lyndon B. Johnson got just shy of half of Republicans in the House to vote for Medicare in 1965, a piece of legislation that was denounced with many of the same words used to oppose this one. That may be the true measure of how much has changed in Washington in the ensuing 45 years, and how Mr. Obama’s own strategy is changing with the discovery that the approach to governing he had in mind simply will not work.
Under the deal, Obama will sign an executive order affirming that no federal funds can be used for abortions. You can read the order here. It doesn’t seem to say much to me beyond the fact of reaffirming that nothing in the act shall be construed to run counter to the so-called existing Hyde language that bars federal funds for abortions.
The mini-instant-conventional wisdom that I’m picking up, subject to alteration, is that Stupak kind of caved. Someone who was at the press conference says that someone read a statement from the US Conference of Catholic Bishops indicating a certain unease with the deal. I don’t know this firsthand, and I’ll report back as developments merit, and you can Google this on your own of course.
As noted, UCUNF have selected 17 out of 18 candidates for the Westminster election. Only the decision on South Antrim is outstanding.
Slugger (me and people I talk to) has been informed, via three separate sources, this is due to concerns from the Conservatives on the alleged homophopbia of current frontrunner Adrian Watson.
Think of Liam Adams, the brother of the Sinn Fein president. Liam has not been tried and is entitled to the presumption of innocence in the sex-abuse charges against him, but consider how the allegations were handled. He was moved about the country and for a time lived in America without those he was staying with being told that he was under suspicion. Gerry Adams, who says he believed the allegations when they were first made to him in 1987, did not inform other members of Sinn Fein or the authorities. The result was that McGuinness was photographed opening a Sinn Fein office in Dundalk alongside Liam Adams, who worked on youth projects there and in west Belfast.
Gerry attended Liam’s second wedding and was photographed canvassing with him. To any onlooker, or anyone following Liam’s career through the press, there was no hint of suspicion. What is more, Gerry told a meeting in north Belfast in 1995 that child abuse should not be reported to the police because “the RUC are not acceptable”. This was 20 years after Fr Brady, as he then was, and his superiors failed to report child-abuse allegations to the gardai.
As the likelihood of an agreed unionist candidate for both Fermangah South Tyrone and South Belfast recedes so the blame game seems to be beginning. Jim Allister has noted that the TUV can claim to be innocent in this argument. The DUP and CUs, however, are both in the process of getting their retaliation in first. The DUP of course are far from innocent in the past of the charge of being vote splitters. However, this time they do seem to have a bit more legitimacy in their complaints: unless that is of course one takes Trimble’s non sectarian claims seriously.
The problem of course is that stating things like: “We have said all along that we will not be joining with any party of a sectarian nature” could be seen to sit a little ill with one who made his political reputation tripping along the Garvaghy Road hand in hand with Dr. Paisley: the then leader of the party he is now describing as sectarian.
There is also another problem in Trimble’s comments, he went on to say: “we will be fighting every seat in the UK, and the Province will be no exception.” Whilst that is sort of true it is only sort of true as Norman Tebbit has pointed out on the BBC’s Politics Show (reproduced here on Conservative Home):“Mr Bercow is not a Conservative candidate. He is an independent candidate. And it’s, in my view, not the business of the Conservative Party to support independent candidates. He did cast himself in my mould, indeed. But he has been reworked in recent years. But I don’t think he would really be able to describe himself as a Conservative any more, even if he were not the Speaker.”
Reg Empey’s response was a little less inflammatory: “DUP have nine out of 10 seats and one wonders how many more they want. It was they who gave South Belfast and Fermanagh-South Tyrone to the nationalists and they should return them to us, the new coalition.” Again, however, that form of words ignores the reality that seats are not in the specific gift of a political party and further that in both Fermanagh South Tyrone and South Belfast the sitting MP was retiring at the election where the seats fell to nationalists. In addition the DUP heavily out polled the UUP in South Belfast at the election when the seat was lost and it is far from clear which candidate the out going MP would have felt was his natural political heir.
In Fermanagh South Tyrone it is alleged that Norman Baxter was willing to run as a unity candidate but it was the CU’s insistence that he take the Tory whip which resulted in him withdrawing from the fray. Going back to Buckingham: it is abundantly clear that the MP the Tories are backing will not be taking their whip.
Somehow, however, honouring an age old tradition of not standing against the speaker and, hence, depriving the Buckingham constituents of the option of voting for a Conservative member of parliament, potential government minister etc. etc. is acceptable. However, having an agreed candidate to stop the election of an MP who refuses to take her seat and is an open supporter of the IRA’s campaign of murder, nowhere more brutal, sectarian or indiscriminate than in Fermanagh; is sectarian.
We were fortunate that our time in Washington at the same time the government was trying to get its healthcare bill through Congress. I say ‘government’ when in actual fact the government (ie the executive office functions overseen by the White House) when - unlike the strong arm approach of LBJ (or even the Bush administration) - the President had little or nothing to do with the drafting of this bill. Rather his contribution seems to have been cast more in the strategic framing of the bill:
His aim is to establish a long-term political direction—one centered on a more activist government that shapes and polices the market to strengthen the foundation for sustainable, broadly shared growth. Everything else—the legislative tactics, even most individual policies—is negotiable. He wants to chart the course for the supertanker, not to steer it around each wave or decide which crates are loaded into its hull.
To the legislation itself, the Economist gives two reasons to back it: one, decency; and two cost control. The second first:
America’s health-care system is a nightmare of perverse incentives. Because employer-provided health insurance is not considered to be a taxable benefit, people feel insulated from the real cost of their coverage and consequently over-consume. Because hospitals and medical practices in many areas face too little competition, they charge absurdly too much even for simple procedures. Because of the rapacity of America’s lawyers, the fear of lawsuits encourages doctors to practise “defensive” medicine, again driving up costs.
This is the libertarian trap that prefers to let freedom reign which encourage the country to consume resources simply to game the system. Thus the cost of the UK’s universal system come in at around 8% of its GDP, whereas the US system which currently excludes 45 million of its population, eats up 16% of its gross domestic product.
Even ‘Obamacare’ will leave a significant number of people outside the system. And there will be no ‘public option’ (a government-run insurance option). Medicine will remain private, but it will be regulated into ‘exchanges’ or government regulated markets in which competition will exert a downward pressure on costs, with a tax being implemented on high-cost insurance plans.
And on the decency thing, for the Economist it is simply about closing an obvious gap between the US and the rest of the developed world. And it is not about covering those currently excluded, but those wage earners whom the insurance companies consider too bad a risk to make money on:
...the much larger number of people who fear falling into that position through losing their jobs; and the larger number again who cannot get affordable insurance because they have an existing medical condition, or because they are too old, or because they have exhausted the “lifetime caps” imposed by insurance companies.
That said, it is still no done thing. House Democrats have - in the words of one Congressman we met last week - ‘lost the narrative’ to outlying rumours like Sarah Palin’s Death Panel story... And the Republicans are counting on fears that these reforms will play into their hands come the mid term elections in November…
That is still a long way away. Obama’s pitch to his party’s Congress caucus yesterday was that this was a straight down the middle bill, which balances fairness with an attempt to bring down America’s sky high healthcare costs… Turning the US Supertaker will take a lot longer than 7 or 8 months…
And there are a dozen other reasons to kick the government party (not least the stubbornly persistent 10% unemployment rate)... Some of those waverers must now be calculating that it is as better to be hung for stealing the proverbial sheep than a lamb…
The study notes that there will be opposition to moving the crosses. “Some local residents strongly oppose any option that involves moving the high crosses because of their spiritual connection to the site, and this opinion should be weighed against the potential damage or structural failure of the crosses if they are left in situ without any protection,” it said. “If the crosses are to be moved, it is preferable that they are retained as close as practically possible to their current location so that they retain their link to the ecclesiastical enclosure.”
While a number of structures on the site require conservation, and there are a number of pressing issues that need to be addressed, none present as urgent or as important an issue as the protection of the crosses.
Arising from the study, it is clear that on-going weathering and the existing public access will cause the continuing deterioration of the high crosses. A range of options for the preservation of the crosses have been examined. All of these options involve the crosses remaining within the immediate vicinity of the National Monument. The table below illustrates how the issue was assessed and the options that are available, adopting the following criteria:
(A) Protection from the weather and preservation in present condition in perpetuity.
(B) Round-the-clock security from vandalism/wilful damage.
(C) Protection from casual visitor damage.
(D) Protection of visual integrity and character of monument group and visitor experience of monument.
The Options
The evaluation of the options was guided by principles of best practice in conservation (O=objective achieved; X=objective not achieved)
Options
(1) Moving crosses into purpose-built visitor centre nearby and putting exact replicas, indistinguishable from originals, at the original locations A O B O C O D O
(2) Leaving crosses exposed to continued weathering (and deterioration) where they are and placing high quality replicas within visitor centre A X B X C X D O
(3) Erecting protective railings around crosses A X B X C O D O?
(4) Erecting shelter around crosses (roof only with supports) A O? B X C X? D X
(5) Erecting shelter around crosses (glazed walls and roof) A O? B O C O D X
The other objectives
Depending on the decision agreed in relation to the crosses, all other related decisions, including those relating to the extension to the graveyard, traffic management, visitor management and visitor facilities can be further analysed.
Severalblogs got here first, but 17 or the 18 joint UUP and Conservative candidates have been announced today.
Mike Nesbitt - Strangford
Daphne Trimble - Lagan Valley
Sandra Overend - Mid Ulster
Fred Cobain - North Belfast
Ross Hussey - West Tyrone
Bill Manwaring - West Belfast
Trevor Ringland - East Belfast
Harry Hamilton - Upper Bann
Danny Kennedy - Newry and Armagh
John McAllister - South Down
Rodney McCune - East Antrim.
Lesley McAuley - East Londonderry.
Paula Bradshaw - South Belfast
David Harding - Foyle
Irwin Armstrong - North Antrim.
Ian Parsley - North Down
Tom Elliott - Fermanagh and South Tyrone
The facebook series titled “Out and About” sees the former promising Alliance upstart stand, dare I say it, UNCUNFortably, at some of the North Down issue key battlegrounds, including the Bangor fountain “I say NO, NO, NO, to the needless waste of fairy washing up liquid in this fine seaside water feature.”, Donaghadee Harbour and the above pictured temporary carpark. Talk about drawing battle-lines.
Chosing ‘friends’ or becoming a ‘fan’ of something on Facebook doesn’t necessarily indicate you support the views you are connecting with, for example I’m a ‘fan’ of the Orange Order.
However, I do wonder at the wisdom of elected representative like the DUP’s Pam Lewis becoming a fan of a group which sails as close to a hate site as this
WE DENOUNCE KEITH HARBINSON & JIM ALLISTER OF TRADITIONAL UNIONIST VOICE AS COWARDS, TRAITORS, LUNDIES AND BIG GIRLS’ BLOUSES FOR THEIR GROVELING “APOLOGY” TO GURU MAGGOTS!
Yesterday, the museum’s director, Dr Pat Wallace said the psalter was so rare and important it now ranks among the top 10 of the tens of thousands of objects in the national collection. It will form the centrepiece of a permanent exhibition in a room of its own expected to open by “early summer 2011” at the museum’s Kildare Street galleries. Dr Wallace said the discovery was “more important for Ireland than the finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls” had been for biblical scholars and has changed our views about how ancient Irish manuscripts were produced. He added: “We never thought anything like this would ever be found.”
The psalter was found on the afternoon of July 20th, 2006, by Eddie Fogarty, a workman who was operating a mechanical digger.
He spotted the book in the bucket of his digger and contacted the bog’s owners, Kevin and Patrick Leonard, who gathered the fragments and covered them with wet peat before notifying the staff of the National Museum.
A specialist team that arrived at the scene discovered that the psalter had fallen open with lines from Psalm 83 clearly visible.
Hmm… I’m not convinced it had “fallen open”
And before we have a re-run of the international furore which accompanied the original discovery there’s an important clarification which the report omits. The archived statement from the museum doesn’t appear to be available, but the relevant quote is recorded in the comments here.
The Director of the National Museum of Ireland, Dr. Patrick F. Wallace, would like to highlight that the text visible on the manuscript does NOT refer to wiping out Israel but to the ‘vale of tears’.
This is part of verse 7 of Psalm 83 in the old latin translation of the Bible (the Vulgate) which, in turn, was translated from an original Greek text would have been the version used in the medieval period. In the much later King James version the number of the Psalms is different, based on the Hebrew text and the ‘vale of tears’ occurs in Psalm 84. The text about wiping out Israel occurs in the Vulgate as Psalm 82 = Psalm 83 (King James version).
14. I now wish to propose to you some concrete initiatives to address the situation.
At the conclusion of my meeting with the Irish bishops, I asked that Lent this year be set aside as a time to pray for an outpouring of God’s mercy and the Holy Spirit’s gifts of holiness and strength upon the Church in your country. I now invite all of you to devote your Friday penances, for a period of one year, between now and Easter 2011, to this intention. I ask you to offer up your fasting, your prayer, your reading of Scripture and your works of mercy in order to obtain the grace of healing and renewal for the Church in Ireland. I encourage you to discover anew the sacrament of Reconciliation and to avail yourselves more frequently of the transforming power of its grace.
Particular attention should also be given to Eucharistic adoration, and in every diocese there should be churches or chapels specifically devoted to this purpose. I ask parishes, seminaries, religious houses and monasteries to organize periods of Eucharistic adoration, so that all have an opportunity to take part. Through intense prayer before the real presence of the Lord, you can make reparation for the sins of abuse that have done so much harm, at the same time imploring the grace of renewed strength and a deeper sense of mission on the part of all bishops, priests, religious and lay faithful.
I am confident that this programme will lead to a rebirth of the Church in Ireland in the fullness of God’s own truth, for it is the truth that sets us free (cf. Jn 8:32).
Furthermore, having consulted and prayed about the matter, I intend to hold an Apostolic Visitation of certain dioceses in Ireland, as well as seminaries and religious congregations. Arrangements for the Visitation, which is intended to assist the local Church on her path of renewal, will be made in cooperation with the competent offices of the Roman Curia and the Irish Episcopal Conference. The details will be announced in due course.
I also propose that a nationwide Mission be held for all bishops, priests and religious. It is my hope that, by drawing on the expertise of experienced preachers and retreat-givers from Ireland and from elsewhere, and by exploring anew the conciliar documents, the liturgical rites of ordination and profession, and recent pontifical teaching, you will come to a more profound appreciation of your respective vocations, so as to rediscover the roots of your faith in Jesus Christ and to drink deeply from the springs of living water that he offers you through his Church.
In this Year for Priests, I commend to you most particularly the figure of Saint John Mary Vianney, who had such a rich understanding of the mystery of the priesthood. “The priest”, he wrote, “holds the key to the treasures of heaven: it is he who opens the door: he is the steward of the good Lord; the administrator of his goods.” The Curé d’Ars understood well how greatly blessed a community is when served by a good and holy priest: “A good shepherd, a pastor after God’s heart, is the greatest treasure which the good Lord can grant to a parish, and one of the most precious gifts of divine mercy.” Through the intercession of Saint John Mary Vianney, may the priesthood in Ireland be revitalized, and may the whole Church in Ireland grow in appreciation for the great gift of the priestly ministry.
On a first reading and leaving aside the inevitable and overdue apology, the striking message of the Pope’s pastoral letter is that a clean-up is needed to strengthen the authority of the clergy, not dilute it. At the heart of his response is a basic refusal to grasp the full extent of the problem. Conservative as ever and as unquestioning as ever of the traditions, structures and authority of the Church, the Pope blames the swingin’ sixties for creating a climate of abuse, a turning away from the values of Holy Ireland. Vatican 2 wasn’t what we thought it was.
The programme of renewal proposed by the Second Vatican Council was sometimes misinterpreted and indeed, in the light of the profound social changes that were taking place, it was far from easy to know how best to implement it. In particular, there was a well-intentioned but misguided tendency to avoid penal approaches to canonically irregular situations. It is in this overall context that we must try to understand the disturbing problem of child sexual abuse, which has contributed in no small measure to the weakening of faith and the loss of respect for the Church and her teachings.
The Pope recognises no systemic problem like celibacy, only the faulty application of procedures – tucked among them, “a misplaced concern for the reputation of the Church”. But no thought here that the Church’s claim to its own elevated position might be a basic problem. The admission to a sin of clerical pride is welcome though.
Only by examining carefully the many elements that gave rise to the present crisis can a clear-sighted diagnosis of its causes be undertaken and Certainly, among the contributing factors we can include: inadequate procedures for determining the suitability of candidates for the priesthood and the religious life; insufficient human, moral, intellectual and spiritual formation in seminaries and novitiates; a tendency in society to favour the clergy and other authority figures; and a misplaced concern for the reputation of the Church and the avoidance of scandal, resulting in failure to apply existing canonical penalties and to safeguard the dignity of every person. Urgent action is needed to address these factors, which have had such tragic consequences in the lives of victims and their families, and have obscured the light of the Gospel to a degree that not even centuries of persecution succeeded in doing.
Here, in addressing the Irish bishops he comes closest to admitting cover up but is unspecific about the remedy. The idea of a wholesale reorganisation of the Church introduced after the bishops’ visit to Rome isn’t developed. This will disappoint many. However Cardinal Brady in introducing the Popes’ letter refers to it as “ one small step” and Archbishop Martin call it “a further step.” This is unlikely to satisfy many victims.
Serious mistakes were made in responding to allegations. I recognize how difficult it was to grasp the extent and complexity of the problem, to obtain reliable information and to make the right decisions in the light of conflicting expert advice. Nevertheless, it must be admitted that grave errors of judgement were made and failures of leadership occurred. All this has seriously undermined your credibility and effectiveness. I appreciate the efforts you have made to remedy past mistakes and to guarantee that they do not happen again. Besides fully implementing the norms of canon law in addressing cases of child abuse, continue to cooperate with the civil authorities in their area of competence. It is imperative that the child safety norms of the Church in Ireland be continually revised and updated and that they be applied fully and impartially in conformity with canon law.
Further resignations aren’t mentioned and as far as the Pope is concerned, we may assume that Cardinal Brady is off the hook. His role in reading out the letter on TV suggests he’s staying on. This is probably correct. The whole idea of makng boys swear an oath even if not to undying secrecy was wrong but some confidentiality is needed in such cases before effective action is taken. He was craven for failing to speak out about it earlier but this is not a hanging offence. ” Wounded healer” is a good formulation, provided he gets on with real healing and doesn’t fool himself into thinking it can be limited to more praying. Action may come as a result of a review operation to be conducted by the Vatican. A 21st century Inquisition or Star Chamber? But this is specific to Ireland and implies no wholesale reform where it is equally needed – in the opaque and overcentralised systems of the Vatican itself. “Physician, heal thyself.” The unreformed Vatican is the problem not the solution.
Furthermore, having consulted and prayed about the matter, I intend to hold an Apostolic Visitation of certain dioceses in Ireland, as well as seminaries and religious congregations. Arrangements for the Visitation, which is intended to assist the local Church on her path of renewal, will be made in cooperation with the competent offices of the Roman Curia and the Irish Episcopal Conference. The details will be announced in due course.
As usual, the laity are exhorted, but he makes no suggestion of serious democraticisation. They remain in a supporting role.
The lay faithful, too, should be encouraged to play their proper part in the life of the Church. See that they are formed in such a way that they can offer an articulate and convincing account of the Gospel in the midst of modern society (cf. 1 Pet 3:15) and cooperate more fully in the Church’s life and mission. This in turn will help you once again become credible leaders and witnesses to the redeeming truth of Christ.
This letter however unprecedented, is hardly enough unless followed up more radical measures not alluded to here. so now it’s up to the State and the people. They have to ask themsleves if they retain confidence in the authority of the clergy over aspects of education and welfare. Why leave it all up to the old man in the Vatican and his immediate cohorts, however contrite they are?
In responding to the crimes of its clergy, the Vatican has chosen to operate at an almost unimaginable level of triviality. First of all the Irish bishops fly over to Rome and MEET THE POPE. Then the Pope announces that is going to WRITE A LETTER.
I’m reminded of a passage from Sir Walter Scott’s novel COUNT ROBERT OF PARIS.
“Notwithstanding this derangement of his most sacred time, our imperial
father, who had postponed the ceremony of disrobing, so important were the
necessities of the moment, continued, until deep in the night, to hold a
council of his wisest chiefs, men whose depth of judgment might have saved
a sinking world, and who now consulted what was to be done under the
pressure of the circumstances in which they were now placed. And so great
was the urgency, that all ordinary observances of the household were set
aside, since I have heard from those who witnessed the fact, that the royal
bed was displayed in the very room where the council assembled, and that
the sacred lamp, called the Light of the Council, and which always burns
when the Emperor presides in person over the deliberations of his servants,
was for that night—a thing unknown in our annals—fed with unperfumed oil!!”
The fair speaker here threw her fine form into an attitude which expressed
holy horror, and the hearers intimated their sympathy in the exciting cause
by corresponding signs of interest…..
*LORD Foster’s architectural firm has been dropped from Boris Johnson’s project to design a new Routemaster bus, despite having won the design competition back in 2008. The Mayor’s Transport for London (TfL) has instead awarded an £8 million contract to design and build five of the new buses by 2012 to Northern Ireland-based Wrightbus.
Getting rid of the unloved bendy buses and the reintroduction of a modern version of the hop-on, hop-off Routemaster were among the central planks of Boris’s mayoral campaign in May 2008, some of which he famously conducted from the rear platform of one of the few remaining in service.
His predecessor, Ken Livingstone, was much derided for getting rid of the Routemasters in 2005, having previously said that “only a ghastly, dehumanised moron” would do such a thing.
In December 2008, the mayor announced Foster + Partners and Aston Martin as joint winners alongside bus-design firm Capoco. Foster’s design featured cream leather seating, wooden floors and a glazed roof. But a TfL spokesman has now told the Architects’ Journal: “Neither the Foster nor the Capoco concepts will be used.”
Wrightbus’s working design, which will be unveiled next month, is understood to have a limited “open” platform to the rear and two staircases.
As the Washington Post observes, the world will be watching to see if the Pope in his letter to the Irish church tears away the veil of secrecy over the full extent of clerical cover-up and admits some blame of his own. Honesty demands that Joseph Ratzinger himself, the man who for decades has been principally responsible for the worldwide cover-up, at last pronounce his own mea culpa,” says Hans Kung, the world’s most famous Catholic theologian, harrassed by JP2 for his liberal thoughts. It seems to me the Pope is between a rock and a hard place of his own making. Does the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith. the old Holy Office he headed, hold all the details of the thousands of cases? If so, will he promise full disclosure? If he does, he exposes his own cover-up; if he doesn’t, he continues it. If neither as is likely, the pressure for full disclosure will be mightily boosted by anti-climax and his very authority put seriously at risk. The BBC’s Rome correspondent David Willey, no callow secularist and the veteran of six papacies “has never seen a graver crisis affecting the very credibility of the leadership of the world’s longest surviving international organisation, the Roman Catholic Church.” Willey believes the Irish letter was held up because of the emergence of the Munich case which points straight to Joseph Ratzinger himself. It’s the old Watergate question: what did he know and when did he know it?. .
The other day a senior Vatican official, Monsignor Charles Scicluna - an amiable priest from Malta who holds the title of Promoter of Justice - actually gave a lengthy official interview about how headquarters in Rome have been reacting to the huge growth in the number of cases of clerical abuse reported to the Pope during the past decade alone. He also gave numbers: during the past decade the Holy Office received details of 3,000 Catholic priests reported by their Bishops to Rome for sexual misconduct or, even worse, crimes.
Sixty per cent of these cases involved homosexual acts, 30% related to heterosexual behaviour and only 10% - or 300 priests - were, he said, “actual cases of paedophilia.” This was, of course, too many, Monsignor Scicluna admitted, but he added: “The phenomenon is not as widespread as has been believed.”
So how many cases and how many to come? 3000 reported to Rome says the reverend Promoter, “7000 in the US, 700 new cases” says the (unsourced ) Guardian report which quotes another veteran reporter and prominent lay Catholic Clifford Longley with an even more expansive verdict than Willey’s.
“It is such a big story because everything about it is extreme,” says the religious affairs author and journalist Clifford Longley. “It is the worst crisis for the Vatican since the middle ages.“Longley says the church survived nazism, fascism and communism and will outlast the EU, the UN, the US. “Bad though this crisis is, it has survived much worse. At the start of the 16th century the Vatican was little better than a shit-hole.”
There
is a sharp distinction between his attitude while a cardinal and his activities as pope that could yet leave an indelible stain on the reign of Benedict XVI. In 2005 he was elected days after declaring that the time had come to sweep “the filth” from his church. By then he had read – and was disgusted by – files on more than 3,000 clerical abuse cases that were channelled to his department by a decree issued four years earlier by John Paul II.
Most of the cases dealt with by the Vatican department in recent years resulted in the accused being removed, if not defrocked. The problem for Benedict is that, as in many other theological respects, he changed his mind. The US Vatican-watcher John Allen this week published in National Catholic Reporter an extract from the transcript of a conference in Spain that showed that, as late as November 2002, Ratzinger dismissed the American abuse scandals as the result of a “planned campaign” in the media.
I can find only one voice in the press joining the valiant band of Slugger commenters defending the Church’s behaviour, Damian Thomson in the Daily Telegraph.
Many Catholics – and I am one of them – believe that the Pope has been stitched up over this Munich case.
Abdul-Salam Mansour Al-Jehani, who was arrested on 15 March in Waterford, pleaded guilty this morning. Detective Sergeant Donal Donohue told the court he had arrested Al-Jehani, who is originally from Libya, for not having proper identity documents and charged him under the 2004 Immigration Act. The court heard he previously applied for asylum in the Netherlands under his real name but had been refused and when he came to Ireland in 2001, he applied for asylum under a false name. In October 2008, he was granted leave to remain in Ireland until July 2011.
Irish News journalist Seamus McKinney gave evidence that Mr Donnelly had been bundled to the ground by police officers as he paused to acknowledge the crowd.
Judge Bates said he had been “impressed” by Mr McKinney’s evidence.
Speaking outside the court, Mr Donnelly said it was now the fourth occasion he had been charged with assaulting police and the charges had been dismissed.
The District Judge said while there were a number of discrepancies in the evidence given by police officers during the trial, he believed the discrepancies proved that the officers had not colluded before giving their evidence.
“However, it surprises me somewhat that no-one took seriously enough Mr. Donnelly’s protestations that his arm was broken”, Mr. McElholm said.
Then after being removed from the republican wing in Magheraberry Donnelly commenced a seven Hunger Strike. This appears to have stopped today with the ending of his segregatation from other republican prisoners.
When he was on the Boston College trip with us, Sam McBride managed to take a few minutes out to interview Tom Hachey, who heads up the Irish Institute there. Today the Newsletter leads with a fascinating story on the College archive they have accumulated of interviews with loyalist and republican paramilitaries over the last nine years. Without going into detail, Haschey tells McBride that “Some of the speculation [on the forthcoming Voices from the Grave
It’s the atavistic fear of Northern Ireland writ large - the fundies are outbreeding the rest of us. It’s not about race, it’s about religion according to Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth?: Demography and Politics in the Twenty-First Century
We were fortunate that our time in Washington at the same time the government was trying to get its healthcare bill through Congress. I say ‘government’ when in actual fact the government (ie the executive office functions overseen by the White House) when - unlike the strong arm approach of LBJ (or even the Bush administration) - the President had little or nothing to do with the drafting of this bill. Rather his contribution seems to have been cast more in the strategic framing of the bill:
Chosing ‘friends’ or becoming a ‘fan’ of something on Facebook doesn’t necessarily indicate you support the views you are connecting with, for example I’m a ‘fan’ of the Orange Order.
The Irish Times reports that conservation work on the 1,200-year-old “Faddan More Psalter”, discovered in 2006 by a workman operating a mechanical digger, is almost complete. The National Museum of Ireland plans to put the eighth century religious manuscript “of staggering importance” on public display next year. From the Irish Times report
After noting the ways Stoneyford POVFB will go about getting around Parades Commission rulings by taking to the fields, I’ll also note how well behaved their colour party and speeches from the Orange Hall seemed to have been - despite the notable exception of current band leader, Paul Smith;
