Sunday, 27 June 2010


I thought that I was fairly unshockable about how low human nature can sink. Until I read this account of the 'Catholic' sex education, nay, corruption, programme in Belgium. (h/t Fr Ray) This has the hoofprints of the devil all over it; the damage to souls is incalculable. I feel sick. No wonder the Church is in such a mess. Woe to those ravening wolves!

And, while I'm at it, am I the only one who thinks that the appointment of Cardinal Murphy O'Connor to sort out the problems in Armagh is ludicrous?
I am personally very fond of the Cardinal—he ordained me—and admire him in many ways, but he is himself tainted by the clerical pædophile issue, and I am convinced that what Ireland needs is something truly cathartic; heads need to roll, to put it bluntly, if the Church is to recover credibility. I strongly suspect that his message to the bishops will be a charming and urbane 'sit tight, don't worry, it'll all be forgotten in a couple of years, and then things will be back to normal'. That won't do any more; there needs to be root and branch reform.


jangojingo said...

Cardinal Murphy O'Connor had first hand experience of being part of the problem (Hill) then first hand experience of being part of the solution (Nolan report). Our Holy Father has made a good choice.

Andrew said...

I couldn't have put it myself Sean. As I previously commented on an earlier post, this is a very serious issue and needs to be dealt with swiftly, publicly and decisively by the Pope. A useful analogy is the way in which the hapless CEO of BP has exacerbated the Gulf of Mexico oil pollution problem by appearing distant, out of touch, lacking leadership or care and just not getting the seriousness of the problem. The Church needs to avoid this at all possible costs, to avoid being seen as having double standards. Responsibility and accountability are the only way forward, so (without a witch hunt of course) heads must indeed roll, failing which community outrage will only increase.

Dorothy B said...

Regarding the appointment of Cardinal Murphy O'Connor: yes, it was extraordinary that they should have picked him, in view of his "baggage" - not, of course, in his own behaviour, but from the way in which he dealt with the behaviour of one of his priests.

Were they unaware? If they knew, why did they think it was appropriate? Surely they could not seriously have thought, "Ah, you see, it's because of this that he's the right man to choose".

Would one make such a decision in any other kind of investigation, where the proposed investigator had this kind of "form"?