Dermot Martin wants Bishops to take responsibility

Newsy

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 23, 2009
Messages
910
Archbishop of Dublin Diarmuid Martin has said that he is not happy with the response of bishops named in the report of the Commission of Investigation into the Catholic Archdiocese of Dublin.

In an interview with RTÉ News, Archbishop Martin said he is writing to Bishop of Limerick Donal Murray and others to say that their responses are a matter for the people of the Dublin Archdiocese and not their own dioceses.

Archbishop Martin said: 'Everybody has to stand up and accept responsibility for what they did.'

RTÉ News: Martin wants bishops to accept responsibility

I just watched the interview and I have to say, I admire his courage as in my view, Martin is 'calling out' these Bishops, in public.

Thoughts, please on this subject.
 


TommyO'Brien

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 14, 2009
Messages
12,132
Within Catholicism his comments are revolutionary. Bishops never say the things he said. When he said on Prime Time that he didn't want to sit with people (at meetings of bishops) who hadn't explain their role that was a radical comment. He was in effect saying that he would consider quitting rather that sit with people who still had not explained their actions and taken responsibility for them. He didn't exclude Connell from the call for an explanation. That was 'sharp intake of breath' time. Archbishops never ever call for explanations from cardinals. They are technically their superiors, princes of the church, answerable to no-one.

To outsiders his comments may have sounded cautious, but within the Church they are quite simply revolutionary. No Irish archbishop has ever used such language, with such implications, against fellow bishops. He is totally correct. But it is very brave in that institution to say what he said. He in his period in office has shown incredible guts in standing up to Connell and others, and willingly handing over every file.
 

droghedasouth

Well-known member
Joined
May 10, 2007
Messages
1,091
I only caught the end of it but he was incredibly impressive for someone constrained by Church protocol. I think his line that it is for the people of Dublin to decide the future of their former bishops was an inspired (and I use the word deliberately) piece of creative thinking and totally to the point. He has completely obliterated Murray's position that it is for the priests and people of Limerick (home of Archbishop Newman before he came to Dublin and site of the only Irish pogrom against the Jews) to decide his future.

Murray will be gone in 10 days maximum.

He can join Magee who, in spite of his former Vatican connections, had to go when Archbishop Martin shoved him.

Archbishop Martin is the only one standing between the total collapse of the Catholic Church in Ireland.
 
Last edited:

uriah

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 18, 2009
Messages
3,607
Murray will be gone in 10 days maximum.
He can join Magee who, in spite of his former Vatican connections, had to go when Archbishop Martin shoved him.

Archbishop Martin is the only one standing between the total collapse of the Catholic Church in Ireland.
But is Magee really gone?
 
Joined
Jul 20, 2009
Messages
138
Martin is only better in the sense that he has the presence of mind not to say something in response to these things that force ones jaw to the drop to the floor with the instant thought "Are you for f.ucking real"?
 

eyeswideopen

Active member
Joined
Nov 6, 2009
Messages
260
Murray will be gone in 10 days maximum.
He can join Magee who, in spite of his former Vatican connections, had to go when Archbishop Martin shoved him.

Archbishop Martin is the only one standing between the total collapse of the Catholic Church in Ireland.
Precisely. He's the bag man.

The Vatican is very good at picking a man for the job.

I don't see him calling for any resignations.
 

Utopian Hermit Monk

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 8, 2007
Messages
3,900
Within Catholicism his comments are revolutionary. Bishops never say the things he said. ... He was in effect saying that he would consider quitting rather that sit with people who still had not explained their actions and taken responsibility for them. ...No Irish archbishop has ever used such language, with such implications, against fellow bishops. He is totally correct. But it is very brave in that institution to say what he said. He in his period in office has shown incredible guts in standing up to Connell and others, and willingly handing over every file.

A major step forward, and, I agree, a very brave one!


.
 

Newsy

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 23, 2009
Messages
910
Within Catholicism his comments are revolutionary. Bishops never say the things he said. When he said on Prime Time that he didn't want to sit with people (at meetings of bishops) who hadn't explain their role that was a radical comment. He was in effect saying that he would consider quitting rather that sit with people who still had not explained their actions and taken responsibility for them. He didn't exclude Connell from the call for an explanation. That was 'sharp intake of breath' time. Archbishops never ever call for explanations from cardinals. They are technically their superiors, princes of the church, answerable to no-one.

To outsiders his comments may have sounded cautious, but within the Church they are quite simply revolutionary. No Irish archbishop has ever used such language, with such implications, against fellow bishops. He is totally correct. But it is very brave in that institution to say what he said. He in his period in office has shown incredible guts in standing up to Connell and others, and willingly handing over every file.
I watched him on Prime Time and I couldn't believe what he was saying. It takes such guts, on his part, to call these Bishops out. I totally agree with you when you use the word 'revolutionary', because it truly is. It is showdown time and the Catholic Church NEVER does this in public.
I have to say, I felt sorry for him when he said that only two Bishops had picked up the phone since Thursday, to ask if he was ok.
Within the Irish Catholic Church, he is standing alone. A VERY lonely place.
 

Newsy

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 23, 2009
Messages
910

droghedasouth

Well-known member
Joined
May 10, 2007
Messages
1,091
Precisely. He's the bag man.

The Vatican is very good at picking a man for the job.

I don't see him calling for any resignations.
You obviously did not see Prime Time.
 

droghedasouth

Well-known member
Joined
May 10, 2007
Messages
1,091
But is Magee really gone?
Technically Magee is on a sabbathical.
But he sure as hell is no longer there and has no role in the diocese.
 

Newsy

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 23, 2009
Messages
910
Technically Magee is on a sabbathical.
But he sure as hell is no longer there and has no role in the diocese.
That's no harm.

So who from the Diocese is helping with the enquiry??
 

droghedasouth

Well-known member
Joined
May 10, 2007
Messages
1,091

Newsy

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 23, 2009
Messages
910
A few minutes on Google would save a lot of people from asking stupid questions.

I'm sorry that such questions are stretching your knowledge :eek:. There really isn't any need for such a statement. It speaks more about you, than anyone else.
 

Stroke

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 26, 2003
Messages
450
Like the first John Paul, it would be a brave man to go looking under rocks and challenge what is tolerated by this ancient and sinister institution.

I hope that Archbishop Martin remains well, he looked fair stressed on the steps of RTE tonight......
 

Utopian Hermit Monk

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 8, 2007
Messages
3,900
It has been obvious in recent days that this crisis has produced deep divisions within the Bishops' Conference.

The Bishop of Dromore, John McAreavey, had no hesitation in saying that, if he were in Donal Murray's position, he would resign.

From Killaloe, Willie Walsh came out with his pathetic plea to leave Murray alone, stop public trials, leave off asking for someone's head, etc. He even had the audacity to invoke the need for healing as an excuse for not demanding responsibility. Then, today, he invoked his own personal shortcomings as another excuse for not 'judging' Murray and the others.

Most of the other bishops have remained silent, thereby exhibiting their own lack of moral fibre and credibility. Their silence indicates that they just hope the whole thing will disappear after a few days, and they can get back to 'business as usual'.

It was interesting to hear Diarmuid Martin's revelation that, in the five days since the Murphy Report was made public, only two of his bishop-colleagues had even bothered to enquire how he was coping in the midst of the storm.

Now, Diarmuid Martin has thrown down the gauntlet, big time.

1. He is demanding satisfactory explanations from, at least:
Desmond Connell, Donal Murray, Martin Drennan, Jim Moriarty, Dermot O'Mahony, Laurence Forristal, Fiachra O Ceallaigh, Raymond Field, Eamon Walsh (and, I would imagine Alex Stenson).

2. He plans to make those 'explanations' public.

3. he did not disagree with the American priest, Tom Doyle, that the people concerned should also resign.

4. He indicated that, if what he is asking for is not forthcoming, he "would not wish to sit at meetings with those people".


I reckon he has really put the cat among the episcopal pigeons!
 
Last edited:

Newsy

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 23, 2009
Messages
910
It has been obvious in recent days that this crisis has produced deep divisions within the Bishops' Conference.

The Bishop of Dromore, John McAreavey, had no hesitation in saying that, if he were in Donal Murray's position, he would resign.

From Killaloe, Willie Walsh came out with his pathetic plea to leave Murray alone, stop public trials, leave off asking for someone's head, etc. He even had the audacity to invoke the need for healing as an excuse for not demanding responsibility. Then, today, he invoked his own personal shortcomings as another excuse for not 'judging' Murray and the others.

Most of the other bishops have remained silent, thereby exhibiting their own lack of moral fibre and credibility. Their silence indicates that they just hope the whole thing will disappear after a few days, and they can get back to 'business as usual'.

It was interesting to hear Diarmuid Martin's revelation that, in the five days since the Murphy Report was made public, only two of his bishop-colleagues had even bothered to enquire how he was coping in the midst of the storm.

Now, Diarmuid Martin has thrown down the gauntlet, big time.

1. He is demanding satisfactory explanations from, at least:
Desmond Connell, Donal Murray, Martin Drennan, Jim Moriarty, Dermot O'Mahony, Desmond Forrestal, Fiachra O Ceallaigh, Raymond Field, Eamon Walsh (and, I would imagine Alex Stenson).

2. He plans to make those 'explanations' public.

3. he did not disagree with the American priest, Tom Doyle, that the people concerned should also resign.

4. He indicated that, if what he is asking for is not forthcoming, he "would not wish to sit at meetings with those people".


I reckon he has really put the cat among the episcopal pigeons!
I would well imagine, in Rome, they are wondering 'what the hell is that guy Martin up to?'

I was listening to Gorman on VB and he said that Martin should have passed it into the hands of Rome, for they to decide.......BUT Rome may not have dealt with it.....just like their silence.

I think Martin is showing HUGE courage in facing it down, at home.....rather than passing the buck to Rome.
 

droghedasouth

Well-known member
Joined
May 10, 2007
Messages
1,091
I'm sorry that such questions are stretching your knowledge :eek:. There really isn't any need for such a statement. It speaks more about you, than anyone else.
If you are so lazy that you post without checking your facts then that says plenty about you.

What it says about me, I can live with.
 

droghedasouth

Well-known member
Joined
May 10, 2007
Messages
1,091
I would well imagine, in Rome, they are wondering 'what the hell is that guy Martin up to?'

I was listening to Gorman on VB and he said that Martin should have passed it into the hands of Rome, for they to decide.......BUT Rome may not have dealt with it.....just like their silence.

I think Martin is showing HUGE courage in facing it down, at home.....rather than passing the buck to Rome.
Exactly - there is no moral courage in passing the buck to Rome.

Archbishop Martin has deliberately gone out on a limb to ensure these people are gone NOW because that is the only way of shifting them.

He may be confident of success but he wont be on most bishop's christmas card list this year. I guess he can live with that.
 

Newsy

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 23, 2009
Messages
910
If you are so lazy that you post without checking your facts then that says plenty about you.

What are you talking about??

What FACTS are you speaking about that I didn't check, before posting??

Clarify, please.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top