Pope rejects resignations of Dublin Auxiliary Bishops

  • Thread starter Thread starter NPC
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
N

NPC

Guest
Pope Benedict XVI has rejected the resignations of Dublin Auxiliary Bishops, Dr Eamonn Walsh and Dr Raymond Field. They had submitted their resignations on Christmas Eve 2009 amidst increasing pressure in the wake of the publication of the Murphy Report into child sexual abuse in the Dublin Archdiocese.

Full story HERE

Needless to say, victim groups have reacted angrily to the announcement. Report HERE
 
Saying that the two men can remain at their jobs with no sanctions is the wrong response to their involvement in the scandals.
 
Rich_Olszewski said:
Saying that the two men can remain at their jobs with no sanctions is the wrong response to their involvement in the scandals.
Click to expand...
Absolutely - but only if they were found guilty of wrongdoing by the report in question. Bishop Walsh has not been judged to have acted wrongly in the cases he was involved in…it brings me back to the point I was making several months ago when the report was first published: there is no justice whatsoever if we only create scapegoats. Certain people were also trying to scapegoat my own bishop, and thankfully he stood his ground…On the other hand, one of the most heavily criticised persons in the report, Desmond Cardinal Connell, has just faded away into the sunset. I don’t see that as justice.
 
NPC said:
On the other hand, one of the most heavily criticised persons in the report, Desmond Cardinal Connell, has just faded away into the sunset. I don’t see that as justice.
Click to expand...
It isn’t. However, there is a reason why Cardinal Connell has just faded into the sunset. I’ll pm you, NPC.
 
hi i’m a conservative craddle catholic born and living ireland, have to say i don’t understand why the resignations weren’t accepted. ireland is now a very secular society, on any given day you will more than likely find an article in the leading daily papers attacking the church, no doubt this will be more amo for them. even catholics who are on the verge of walking away will find this as another reason to throw in the towel i pray the holy father knows what he is at
 
Yes, please, does anybody know about this?
Prima Facie, it does look pretty bad! I’m sure the Vatican has good reasons, but does anybody know what they are?
 
Reading the report, i can see why Bishop Walsh was not sacked. Unless the paper has missed something I would not accept the sacking if i was the Pope either.

On November 26th 2009 the Murphy report was published. It found that allegations about ‘Fr Dante’ (a pseudonym) in 1997, which were also addressed by Bishop Walsh, had been dealt with appropriately by the archdiocese.

Concerning Fr Noel Reynolds, the commission report records that Bishop Walsh had been informed by a social worker that a client of hers had alleged she had been abused by Fr Reynolds. Bishop Walsh “advised her to write to the chancellor”. In this latter case, i think that putting allegations in writing is the correct thing to do.

Regardsing Bishop Field it is also not clear cut what happened and i can see why there is aneed for more information - see below. However, looks at best like he was bungling and at worst deceptive. If the latter weighs more heavily, then he should have gone.

The Murphy Commission found allegations against Fr Horatio (a pseudonym), and with which Bishop Field had been involved, were dealt with appropriately by the archdiocese. Where “Fr Sergius” was concerned, Bishop Field told the commission he believed he was dealing with a priest who had an alcohol problem and was not aware of abuse complaints against him.

The commission found information given by Bishop Field to priests in the parish to which ‘Fr Benito’ was assigned in December 2003 “was certainly not complete or sufficiently specific”. It was concerned “about the failure to inform Bishop Field about the advisory panel’s perception that he had delayed in reporting a complaint of child sex abuse”.
 
The resignations weren’t because of the abuse, though, correct? They were the normal resignations offered when a bishop reaches a set age, which may be accepted or rejected.

There are many reasons why the bishops’ resignations were not accepted. . .anything from a refusal to accept because a bishop was innocent of wrongdoing and his leadership was necessary for some given time until a new bishop could be assigned appropriately, to a refusal to accept because a bishop might need to address wrongs BEFORE he could ‘leave’ or ‘resign’, in the interest of justice to all.

The Pope does not have to consider mere ‘appearance’ or even what seems a short-term ‘reaction’ that satisfies secular society. . .he has to consider the long picture and to think not only with justice but with mercy for ALL. . .
 
Tantum_ergo said:
The resignations weren’t because of the abuse, though, correct? They were the normal resignations offered when a bishop reaches a set age, which may be accepted or rejected.

There are many reasons why the bishops’ resignations were not accepted. . .anything from a refusal to accept because a bishop was innocent of wrongdoing and his leadership was necessary for some given time until a new bishop could be assigned appropriately, to a refusal to accept because a bishop might need to address wrongs BEFORE he could ‘leave’ or ‘resign’, in the interest of justice to all.

The Pope does not have to consider mere ‘appearance’ or even what seems a short-term ‘reaction’ that satisfies secular society. . .he has to consider the long picture and to think not only with justice but with mercy for ALL. . .
Click to expand...
No - both bishops were born in 1944: Bishop Field in May, making him 66 years & Bishop Walsh in September, so he will turn 66 next month. [This info is on the website of the Irish Catholic Bishops’ Conference - http://www.catholicbishops.ie/archdioceses-and-dioceses/view-list/895-dublin”]HERE]

They offered their resignations due to pressure from victims and the media; their hope, as they said in their statement on Christmas Eve 2009, was that their resignations would bring peace and reconciliation to victims of child sexual abuse.

However, there was specualtion in the media in May (or maybe earlier) that it would be impossible for Pope Benedict to accept the resignations since the three-month period for acceptance of resignations (as required in Canon Law) had passed. Though, I think it is true to say that even at Christmas people were wondering if the Pope would accept the resignations of Bishops Walsh and Field - on the other hand, there was little doubt that other resignations would be accepted, such as those of Bishop Murray of Limerick and Bishop Moriarty of Kildare & Leighlin.
 
NPC said:
No - both bishops were born in 1944: Bishop Field in May, making him 66 years & Bishop Walsh in September, so he will turn 66 next month. [This info is on the website of the Irish Catholic Bishops’ Conference - http://www.catholicbishops.ie/archdioceses-and-dioceses/view-list/895-dublin”]HERE
Click to expand...
]

They offered their resignations due to pressure from victims and the media; their hope, as they said in their statement on Christmas Eve 2009, was that their resignations would bring peace and reconciliation to victims of child sexual abuse.

However, there was specualtion in the media in May (or maybe earlier) that it would be impossible for Pope Benedict to accept the resignations since the three-month period for acceptance of resignations (as required in Canon Law) had passed. Though, I think it is true to say that even at Christmas people were wondering if the Pope would accept the resignations of Bishops Walsh and Field - on the other hand, there was little doubt that other resignations would be accepted, such as those of Bishop Murray of Limerick and Bishop Moriarty of Kildare & Leighlin.

Thank you – that information is very helpful. I appreciate it.
 
See David Quinn’s excellent article in the Irish Independent.

Neither was implicated in the scandals except that there names were mentioned in the report.
 
feargalmac said:
See David Quinn’s excellent article in the Irish Independent.

Neither was implicated in the scandals except that there names were mentioned in the report.
Click to expand...
That is not true; you need to read the Murphy report.

They knew what was happening and did nothing; ie actively condoned the abuse. Which to many is worse than the abuse itself. It allows evil to flourish. When they had the authority and power to stop it before more and more children were abused.
 
Hopemercy said:
That is not true; you need to read the Murphy report.

They knew what was happening and did nothing; ie actively condoned the abuse. Which to many is worse than the abuse itself. It allows evil to flourish. When they had the authority and power to stop it before more and more children were abused.
Click to expand...
Well, Judge Murphy, in chapter one of the report lists the auxiliary bishops who had been aware of the extent of abuse in the diocese. She is very clear to list the ones who were aware of the complaints and suspicions of abuse in the archdiocese. Bishops Walsh and Field do not feature on the list - that does not mean that they didn’t deal with complaints, but it doesn’t support the idea that they knew what was happening and did nothing or that they actively condoned the abuse.
1.22 Many of the auxiliary bishops also knew of the fact of abuse as did officials such as Monsignor Gerard Sheehy and Monsignor Alex Stenson who worked in the Chancellery. Bishop James Kavanagh, Bishop Dermot O’Mahony, Bishop Laurence Forristal, Bishop Donal Murray and Bishop Brendan Comiskey were aware for many years of complaints and/or suspicions of clerical child sexual abuse in the Archdiocese.
Click to expand...
It is important, too - especially, perhaps, in the case of Bishop Field - that the Murphy Commission distinctly mentions the mid-1990’s as a turning-point in terms of the handling of complaints. Murphy states that “in the mid 1990’s, a light began to be shone on the scandal and the coverup” [1.113]. The “culture of coverup” markedly changed from the mid-90’s; this is clear when one looks at the measures the Archdiocese was taking to deal with complaints.

Some people have claimed that it is impossible to believe that the auxiliary bishops didn’t know the full extent of the abuse. However, the report shows clearly that this isn’t the case. The lack of communication was deplorable. In fact, Murphy indicates that Bishop Field’s failure in the Fr Benito case was largely due to this lack of communication:
The Commission is also concerned about the failure to inform Bishop Field about the advisory panel’s perception that he had delayed in reporting a complaint of child sexual abuse. It also seems strange that he was not told about the 2005 meeting during which Mr Garland formed the view that the priests of the parish had not been given basic information when Fr Benito was appointed there. [48.30]
Click to expand...
  • Now, this doesn’t exonerate Bishop Field: he did not give full information to the priests - but it serves to show that, in many cases, if the internal communication had been better - indeed, if it had even existed at all - outcomes may have been very different. The lack of communication in the case of Fr Noel Reynolds [chapter 35], for example, was deplorable: a fellow archbishop not being informed of Fr Reynolds’ background when he applied to be transferred to an island ministry; an auxiliary bishop, Dermot O’Mahony arranging a psychiatric assessment for Reynolds’ without being aware that Monsignor Stenson had sent him for an assessment already that very year; when Fr Reynolds was appointed chaplain to the National Rehabilitation Centre, management were not informed of Reynolds’ background by Archbishop Connell, but by a television crew! This example alone should be enough to dispel the myth that the auxiliary bishops were “in the loop”.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top