theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/priest-denies-making-claims-about-mackillops-excommunication/story-e6frg6nf-1225935119611The corrected story says that Mary’s sisters (nuns) reported it to Fr Woods who in turn reported it to the bishop while Mary was in Queensland. This version has not yet been aired in the popular news in Australia…
There are also calls for her to be named the Patroness for the abused.In the week leading up to the historic canonization of Mary MacKillop, this compelling documentary charts her road to sainthood, her two “miracles” and the “crime” which led to her infamous excommunication.
Why would they name her patron saint of the abused? You do realise that Compass were the ones who misquoted the priest in the first place, and came up with this furphy about why she was excommunicated, in the first place don’t you?This was broadcast yesterday so it is getting a lot of coverage.
You can still watch it online for the next 13 days.
Compass: Series 24, Episode 37 Mary, Miracles and Saints
abc.net.au/iview/#/program/652597
There are also calls for her to be named the Patroness for the abused.
news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/mackillop-should-be-saint-for-abused-20101010-16dq8.html
Yes the Compass program does not have a good track record.Why would they name her patron saint of the abused? You do realise that Compass were the ones who misquoted the priest in the first place, and came up with this furphy about why she was excommunicated, in the first place don’t you?
I was just remarking that this excommunication story has gone to a full blown ‘documentary’ on the ABC.Why would they name her patron saint of the abused? You do realise that Compass were the ones who misquoted the priest in the first place, and came up with this furphy about why she was excommunicated, in the first place don’t you?
All sexual abuse is rumoured or suspected before it has been properly investigated.Also be aware that the sisters and Fr Woods did not report “sexual abuse”, but reported rumoured and suspected sexual abuse only. Fr Keating apparently was never charged with or even acccused of any crime and apparently never had any other such rumour or suspicion reported about him. He has the right to the presumption of innocence even after his death. The sisters and Fr Woods may have been mistaken or may even have had ulterior motives - just because the co-founder is about to be canonised does not mean that she, much less Fr Woods and the other sisters, were always perfect in every way.
So you want the police to investigate a rumour about something that supposedly happened 140 years ago???All sexual abuse is rumoured or suspected before it has been properly investigated.
I don’t see how this makes the story “false.” The details of who said what to whom may or may not be accurate, but it seems pretty clear that her excommunication was the result of backlash against her and her order because they reported abuse. That is the key fact, and it appears to be true.She was 1,000 miles away from place the story says she was.
see siena.org/October-2010/mary-mackillop-the-whistle-that-never-blew.html
No, I don’t want the police to investigate it now, and I never said that I did. You said that she didn’t report “Sexual abuse”, but “Rumoured or Suspected Sexual abuse”; as if it makes a difference to those she reported to if those were different things. Any crime is “rumoured or suspected” until it is investigated, and proven or dismissed in court.So you want the police to investigate a rumour about something that supposedly happened 140 years ago???
The rumour about Fr Keating remains a rumour and will probably always remain a rumour.
Indeed, but your previous post seemed to imply that we should simply assume that Fr Keating is guilty because there was a rumour.No, I don’t want the police to investigate it now, and I never said that I did. You said that she didn’t report “Sexual abuse”, but “Rumoured or Suspected Sexual abuse”; as if it makes a difference to those she reported to if those were different things. Any crime is “rumoured or suspected” until it is investigated, and proven or dismissed in court.
Actually Fr Woods reported it to the acting administrator of the diocese (the bishop was in Rome for the First Vatican Council) who sent Fr Keating back home. When the bishop returned, now very ill, a group of priests who opposed Fr Woods and suspected him of making up stories (understandably because Fr Woods was making all sorts of bizarre claims of miracles, Satanic activities, visions of recently departed people in Heaven or Hell etc) convinced the bishop that the Sisters had been disobedient. He then excommunicated Mother Mary on her return to Adelaide, but he did so in an invalid form and without due process. Five months later he reversed the excommunication and apologised.The corrected story says that Mary’s sisters (nuns) reported it to Fr Woods who in turn reported it to the bishop while Mary was in Queensland.
There is no dispute that she was excommunicated by her bishop for disobedience, and that the bishop lifted the excommunication on his deathbed. During her canonization process, it came out that the excommunication was sought by a priest that was retaliating against her. The initial report was that he was retaliating because she reported abuse. It now appears that the report may have been made by a sister under her charge and not by her personally. That is my understanding of the sum and substance of the story.I’m confused.
Was she excommunicated?
If this story is false, what is the truth?
My exact words were All sexual abuse is rumoured or suspected before it has been properly investigated. That doesn’t imply anything of the sort about Fr Keating.Indeed, but your previous post seemed to imply that we should simply assume that Fr Keating is guilty because there was a rumour.
I of course am quite interested in your report that the booklets passed out at her canonization said she had been in fact excommunicated. I wonder if you could link to your source for this. The priest in charge of her canonization process said that she was never excommunicated, so there seems some sort of contradiction here.mdgspencer,
I’m not sure I understand. That second article you linked to doesn’t deny the excommunication happened just that the reason for it and the details about it that were put forward were false.
As far as I know, the excommunication happened.
Just as an FYI, the little books that they handed out at the Vatican during the canonization this weekend (it contained info on the beatified and the sequence of the mass) affirmed her excommunication which occurred as a result of “a complex sequence of events”.
VC