Pope rejects bishops' resignations
Some predicted this turn of events, but many will nevertheless be surprised by it. Pope Benedict has refused to accept the resignations of two Irish bishops who were mentioned in the Bishop Eamonn Walsh and Bishop Raymond Field announced that they had tendered their resignations as auxiliary bishops of Dublin at Christmas. At the time, many priests in Dublin were said to be angry with their archbishop for failing to support bishops who were merely mentioned, without any specific criticisms, in the Report. The Pope's decision to decline their resignations will be read by many of them as a less-than-veiled criticism of the archbishop.
A few weeks before offering his resignation, in a letter to priests in Dublin , Eamonn Walsh offered a sustained defence of his role as an auxiliary bishop and challenged the claim that he was guilty "by association". His letter pointedly makes reference to the Archbishop of Dublin. The clear implication is that Dr Martin had misjudged his auxiliaries.
"I would like to draw your attention to the references to me as outlined in the Report
by Judge Yvonne Murphy and her Team, and I would ask you to read them for
yourself: 4.50; 7.22; 7.45- 47; 10.11; 11.13; 24.27; 35.32; 41.34; 43.5. The question of resignation has been raised on the grounds of 'guilt by association'. However, guilt by association only arises where someone is complicit in a decision or action, or is silent when to speak would have made a difference. Present in a room or proximity to a decision-maker of itself is not guilt by association. If anyone attributes such guilt to me, he or she does so without foundation, and against the findings of the Dublin Report.
"In order for me to minister within the area and to support the priests and people, I
must enjoy your confidence. One can only work with people where there is mutual
trust. At a meeting with priests in Citywest, on Saturday, 12th December, Archbishop
Martin confirmed publicly that he had confidence in his Dublin Auxiliary Bishops.
I hope that the above information will help you to reach your own conclusion in
relation to my role and posts held in the diocese."
Evidently Pope Benedict has . On this week's Sunday Sequence, I'll explore the implications of the Pope's decision with the victims campaigner Marie Collins and Patsy McGarry of the Irish Times.
David Quinn offers of the Pope's decision. He writes:
"Why didn't the Pope accept the resignations of Auxiliary Bishops Walsh and Field? The answer is that in the case of Bishop Field it wasn't justified, and in the case of Bishop Walsh it was a 50/50 call."
Comment number 1.
At 12th Aug 2010, romejellybeen wrote:Yet again the Vatican shows utter contempt for victims of abuse in particular and Irish Catholics in general.
Not to mention a hefty boot in the nether regions (with a nice pair of Gucci, red shoes) for Diarmud Martin. Cardinal Schonborn of Vienna will be able to tell him what it feels like.
If you are right wing, subservient, culpably obedient to Rome and give church teaching a higher priority than the gospel - step into the parlour.
If you seek truth, justice, accountability and decency, take your complaint down the hall (and preferably out the door) please.
Roll on a union for priests and the boycott of Mass by women.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 12th Aug 2010, Dave wrote:Do ever think the catholic church will go the way of protestantism and sectionalise into lots of denominations or sects and if so is this crisis, and more importantly the hierarchies handling of the crisis, more or less likely to see a break up occur?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 12th Aug 2010, romejellybeen wrote:Dave
The break up has already happened. Ratzinger, Sodano, Bertone, Law, Brady, and their cronies, the SSPX, the Tridentinists, the ultra-Montanists and all those who rejected the second Vatican Council, have already left the Catholic Church.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
At 13th Aug 2010, David Kerr wrote:As I read through the extracts mentioned in your piece I could not help but think the second week of August is a very interesting time for this news to come out. Most of the continent will be on holiday and away from desks.
Btw Romejellybean I believe the famous shoes are Prada, would Mr Ratzinger be caught dead in Gucci?
I really need to read the report in full some time but the extracts alone smack of a 'firm' who wished to protect the firm and employees. Obfuscation and cover up seemed to be the order of the day and if Walsh or Field did this they should go.
I notice the Austrian church members are leaving in their droves. What is happening to the flock in Ireland? Staying or going?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 4)
Comment number 5.
At 14th Aug 2010, romejellybeen wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 5)
Comment number 6.
At 14th Aug 2010, newlach wrote:I would like to know what steps these bishops took to ensure that the paedophiles they were responsible for were not raping children? Some people might think it great that a bishop can give a great theological argument against the use of condoms, but if they cannot spot widespread and persistent sexual abuse by their priests on innocent children they lack competence in my view.
Taking the longer view, resignations are a permanent blot on the copy book: no resignation no permanent blot. The embarrassing question: "Why did the Pope accept their resignations?" is not one that can be asked. In years to come the question: "Why did the Pope not accept their resignations?" is unlikely to be asked.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 6)
Comment number 7.
At 14th Aug 2010, David Kerr wrote:Yes, RJB that was a good movie. Good one!
Complain about this comment (Comment number 7)
Comment number 8.
At 15th Aug 2010, newlach wrote:It was interesting to hear that although these bishops tendered their resignations they simultaneously mounted a strong rearguard action to ensure that they kept their jobs - yes it does make one question their sincerity! I agree with the guest on the programme - no change at the top. The failure of the Pope to accept these resignations and the failure of the Vatican to provide an explanation for not accepting their resignations is one mighty kick in the teeth to the victims of priestly abuse.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 8)
Comment number 9.
At 15th Aug 2010, VSUN wrote:The poor dears were spared resignations...What about jail time??!!
The rape and abuse of the most innocent of us must be much more severely punished and denounced. Why do these pedophiles get treated any more meekly than non-clergy abusers?!
People defrauding the tax man are treated more harshly than those that terrorize and ruin the lives of children.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 9)
Comment number 10.
At 3rd Oct 2010, Gaz wrote:All this user's posts have been removed.Why?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 10)