Madam, – One point regarding the Murphy commission of investigation bears emphasis. It is that the Dublin Diocese did not receive (or indeed seek) the kind of elaborate constitutional justice with which we have become expensively familiar, in tribunals of inquiry conducting essentially similar investigations to that of Judge Murphy. Yet, the Dublin Diocese is not protesting that it has been treated unfairly.
What does this say about constitutional justice? – Yours, etc,
Madam, – Jimmy O’Brien (December 14th) refers to the level of hysteria expressed in your Letters page regarding the Murphy report. May I respectfully suggest that balance in one’s thinking is easy to achieve when one has not been affected by abuse either directly or indirectly? Anger channelled positively may facilitate significant change and hopefully transform our society into one which truly cherishes and protects children. The reality is that child protection structures in this country continue to be inadequate.
Let us compare and contrast the effort spent by the Government in resolving our banking crisis versus that which exists in child protection. The conclusion that can be drawn is that financial assets are of greater importance than the mental and physical wellbeing of our children. – Yours, etc,
Madam, – In response to Fr Vincent Twomey’s letter concerning the state of the Irish church (December 9th), there is a need for a fundamental reform of the governance of the church, namely, the end to papal appointment and the restoration of the ancient practice of election by the clergy and people of the diocese.
Papal appointments carried out in secret perpetuate an old boys’ network based on patronage and favour and underscore the notion that a bishop is merely a branch manager of an international corporation. Those appointed are usually unknown to the faithful of the diocese they will serve.
Many also strive to secure richer and more prestigious posts, so much so that Cardinals Bernard Gantin and Josef Ratzinger complained of careerism among bishops. The transfer of bishops is so commonplace as to be a game of musical chairs. Not only that, but it contradicts the ancient tradition of the church which compared the relationship between the bishop and his faithful to the marriage bond and declared that a bishop who abandoned one diocese for another was guilty of spiritual adultery.
The bishop’s ring was intended to symbolise his union with his see.
Whereas the papal right to appoint bishops was only explicitly stated in the Code of Canon Law of 1917 (c. 329), two early popes stressed the right of election. Pope Celestine I (422-32) declared, “No one who is unwanted should be made a bishop; the desire and consent of the clergy and the people and the order is required”. Pope Leo I, the Great (440-61) stated emphatically, “The one whom the unanimous consent of the clergy and people demands should be preferred . . . It is essential to exclude all those unwanted and unasked for, if the people are not to be crossed and end by despising or hating their bishop”. He also affirmed, “The one who is to preside over everyone should be elected by everyone.”
In my book, Electing Our Bishops: How the Catholic Church Should Choose Its Leaders (Rowman Littlefield 2007) I discuss the history of episcopal elections and various proposals for reform of the process. Although The Canon Law Society of America in 1973 presented a Procedure for the Selection of Bishops in the United States that called for the creation of a diocesan committee that would propose three candidates for the office of bishop, that proposal has not been generally implemented.
A return to the election of bishops by the clergy and people of the diocese may help to restore the trust of the faithful that the bishops so foolishly threw away by their conduct during the crisis of sexual abuse. – Yours, etc,
Madam, – Since no other Catholic Church person seems to care enough or have “guts” enough to do it, let me state publicly that, unlike Patricia Casey, David Quinn, Breda O’Brien, Patsy McGarry, John Cooney, the “Irish Catholic” writers, Fr Vincent Twomey etc, I think that Bishop Murray and the other bishops mentioned in the Murphy report should not resign.
Those bishops and the others – including the perverts and their victims – mentioned in that report were and are guinea-pigs, victims of the well-intentioned, but misguided and inexcusable, experimental 1960s change of policy from defrocking to rehabilitating priest perverts. As Catholic Church officials in Rome were aware of that change, Archbishop Martin would have known about it unless he was too distracted by other doings during his 30 years there.
On that account, I think our archbishop should be countering rather than fuelling the “heads on a plate” campaign for resignations that would disgracefully attach the disgraceful media “disgrace” label to the memory of innocent men.
May I dissent also from the verbose, lengthy, superficial flight of poetic fancy that lets ex-Catholic Theo Dorgan today (Opinion, December 14th) compare Archbishop Martin with former Soviet premier Mikhail Gorbachev and the freefall state of our Catholic Church with the collapse of the Soviet Union. There is nothing wrong with our church that sustained use of Christ’s two-handed preaching wouldn’t rectify, and will eventually rectify.
Our church’s tragedy now is that since his return, Archbishop Martin has for the past six years persisted with one-handed preaching and his priests have followed suit. As a result the failure that is freefall has continued. Yours, etc,
Madam, – In the photograph of the head of the Vatican press office, Fr Ferderico Lombardi (World News, December 12th), his raised hand frames the digital clock on the wall, reading: 14:03. The Book of Psalms on The Corruption of Man 14.3 says: “They have all gone astray, they are all alike, corrupt, there is none that does good, no, not one.”
Let the time for procrastination over the Murphy report come to an end, and let the Catholic Church live by the Bible. – Yours, etc,