Precedent for resignation of a whole hierarchy

Father Vincent Twomey SVD, in a letter to The Irish Times on 2 December, called for the resignation of the five bishops still in office who had been mentioned in the Murphy Report. The text of the letter can be found on Dr Twomey’s website. In a letter in today’ issue of the paper he asks for forgiveness for having included Bishop Drennan:

Madam, – Since I am on record as calling for the resignation of the bishops mentioned in the Murphy report (December 3rd), I should have expressly excluded Dr Martin Drennan. The present Bishop of Galway was not found guilty of either negligence or cover-up by the Murphy commission. The one substantial reference to Bishop Drennan in the report (51.1-51.2) indicates that, when he was Auxiliary in Dublin, he acted appropriately in the case in question. The report concludes, “The Archbishop acted correctly in immediately addressing the concerns and suspicions in this case.” This amounts, if I am correct, to a recommendation of Bishop Drennan’s initial response with regard to a young priest acting suspiciously with young males.

Calls for his resignation are unfounded. If I was in any way guilty of inciting such calls, I am sincerely sorry and ask forgiveness. – Yours, etc,

REV DR D VINCENT TWOMEY, SVD,

Professor Emeritus of Moral Theology,

Divine Word Missionaries,

Maynooth, Co Kildare.

Patsy McGarry, Religious Affairs Correspondent of The Irish Times comments on the letter:

There are precedents for bishops resigning, including a whole hierarchy. Archbishop Penney of St John’s, Newfoundland, resigned in 1991. As I recall, the head of the committee he had appointed was a retired chief justice of Newfoundland, an Anglican. It is clear that Archbishop Penney wanted the truth to come out. The National Catholic Reporter commented on this in 2004:

From the Editor's Desk

The accounting begins

“We are a sinful church. We are naked. Our anger, our pain, our anguish, our shame and our vulnerability are clear to the whole world. … I’m prepared to take the responsibility, and that’s something I have to live with.”

Those were the words of then-Archbishop Alphonsus Penney of Newfoundland, Canada, in 1990 on announcing his resignation after a committee that he had appointed to look into sexual abuse in his archdiocese returned a scathing assessment of his handling of the matter.

Penney did not have Vatican approval to resign. He just did so because he had come to realize that he had terribly mishandled reports of sexual abuse of children. He had failed his people as a spiritual leader. And he stepped down.

The Penney incident, in the wake of the week’s reports here on sex abuse, is instructive in a host of ways. First, it was a bishop taking responsibility, without any qualifiers or excuses, for what happened on his watch. Nowhere did he blame the press or an oversexed culture or the reforms of Vatican II or his lack of understanding of the problem or a lack of communication with his fellow prelates or the lack of understanding of sexual abuse by the social sciences of that era. People had been hurt; he had been a large reason the hurt continued. He apologized and he stepped aside.

After he resigned, he sat for a detailed interview (NCR, Aug. 10, 1990) and recounted the insights he had gained during the ordeal, not least of which was the support of people appreciative of the way he sacrificed his career for the integrity of the church.

+++

In a very different situation, the bishops of the five ecclesiastical jurisdictions in the Philippines at the beginning of the last century resigned or were transferred in 1902 and 1903. One was succeeded by the first Filipino bishop, the others by Americans. This was in the wake of the Spanish-American War and the Treat of Paris in 1898 when the USA bought the Philippines from Spain for $18,000,000 or as Filipinos often put it, they bought Filipinos for $2 a head:

Nueva Caceres: 20 July 1903. Succeeded by Filipino 1905

Cebu: 30 July 1904. Succeeded by American, appointed 17 July 1903

Jaro: resigned 27 October 1903. Succeeded by American, appointed 12 June 1903

Manila: resigned 4 Feb 1902. Succeeded by American, appointed 6 June 1903

Nueva Segovia: transferred to Spain 25 June 1903. Succeeded by American appointed 10 June 1903.

The information can be found at http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/ .

The overlapping dates for Cebu, Jaro and Mueva Segovia suggest that perhaps the Spanish bishops had to be pushed but communications in those days were much slower than now.

Would it be helpful if all Irish bishops offered their resignations so that the Church could make a fresh start for the sake of everyone? Vincent Twomey suggested something like this, along with a drastic reduction in the number of dioceses in Ireland, in an article in The Irish Times on 9 December.

The Pope could choose not to accept some resignations.

In defence of Bishop Drennan of Galway

Bishop Martin Drennan of Galway

I received the email below from Robert Fuller of Galway who read my post of 29 December, 'Catholic Church in Ireland 'burning down'.

Sexual abuse of children is a most horrible crime in which there is no
room for complacency. As a parent and a catholic I join the calls that
all those involved in neglect or cover up should resign.

With the reported resignation of four bishops this month, there seems
to be an expectancy that our Bishop of Galway, Martin Drennan, should
be next to go. Bishop Drennan’s name does appear in the Murphy
Report, but his actions are commended, not criticised.

The Murphy Report gives a harrowing account of how Dublin Archdiocese
handled allegations and suspicions of child sexual abuse against
clerics during the period 1975-2004. The truth, not widely reported
before Christmas by the media, is that Bishop Drennan was appointed as
an Auxiliary Bishop in Dublin Archdiocese only in 1997, which was
after the much acclaimed “Framework Document” for dealing with such
complaints was already in place.

In over 700 pages, Bishop Drennan’s name is mentioned in connection
with only 1 of the 46 cases examined. In that case, concerns and
suspicions (not allegations of child sexual abuse) about “Fr. Guido”
(a pseudo name) were brought to Bishop Drennan’s attention, and the
Murphy Report commends how these were dealt with, concluding, “The
Archdiocese acted correctly in immediately addressing the concerns and
suspicions in this case”. (The Murphy Report, page 620)

Like many people in this country, I am angry. For many victims of
child sexual abuse, suffering was increased by injustice in how
concerns and allegations were handled. But neither the suffering or
anger can be relieved in a meaningful way through a further injustice
of delegating guilt and punishment to those not responsible. True
reform must seek to understand and address the reasons why bishops put
corporate and self preservation ahead of the Gospel.

If Bishop Drennan was involved in the neglect or cover up of
allegations of child sexual abuse then I would be also calling for his
resignation. However, the current evidence backed by the Murphy
Report is that he had behaved pro-actively for the protection and
safety of children. Accepting this and his word to be true, I for one
do not believe that his resignation would serve any purpose of
justice, reform, or healing.

Thanks for having taken the time to read through. Please support
Bishop Drennan by forwarding this email to others who may be
interested.

Sincerely,

Robert Fuller

Caravaggio painting of the Nativity 'burned by Mafia in the 1980s'

Nativity with St Francis and St Lawrence, Caravaggio, 1609

Zenit carries a story by Elizabeth Lev, datelined 24 December:

In Italy, where we are still reeling from European Union ruling banning crucifixes in classrooms, another piece of devastating news struck last week; Caravaggio's massive and magnificent painting of the Nativity, stolen from Palermo in 1969, appears to have been destroyed by the mafia.

The Nativity with Sts Francis and Lawrence, painted in 1609 for the Oratory of San Lorenzo in Palermo, is counted among Caravaggio's last works. The Milanese artist on the run after murdering a man in Rome had taken refuge in Sicily while awaiting a papal pardon. Caravaggio would receive his pardon, but die on the way to Rome the following year.

The immense oil-on-canvas, (about 8 by 6 feet) was stolen on the night of Oct. 16, 1969, from the Oratory, and despite the exhaustive work of police investigators and pleas from the art world, the painting never resurfaced. It remains on the FBI's list of top 10 art crimes.

This past Dec. 9, Gaspare Spatuzzo, a former mafia hitman turned "pentito" (the Italian term for an informer), revealed that the painting, damaged during the theft, had been burned in the 1980s.

Full report here.

Web Gallery of Art carries this description of the painting:

The painting representing the Nativity was stolen in October 1969 from the church of San Lorenzo in Palermo, where it had been since it was made. The composition is less successful than in other cases; the contained and pensive atmosphere, however, shows that at this stage Caravaggio associated the idea of advent of Christ not with the joy of Redemption but with a future that was at best uncertain.

Under the roof of the stable in Bethlehem, whose side walls are disappearing into brownish darkness, shepherds and saints gathered to worship the newborn Christ-child in such a way that we can make out Archdeacon Lawrence on the left only after a second look, and viewers may well mistake St Francis for a shepherd. One figure, the patron, represents the church for which the picture was intended, and the other, the Order to which the church belongs. We cannot be entirely sure who Joseph, the foster-father, is.

The center of the picture is shared out between the figures who have come to worship. The naked Christ-child lies there on a bed of straw and some white drapery. Exhausted, the Holy Virgin is crouching on the ground behind him - wearing an unusually cut dress, which is falling from her right shoulder - looking at the child. The ox, which appears behind St Lawrence, is also looking in that direction. Above all this, an angel is flying down from heaven. In his left hand he is holding a banner on which the words of the gloria are written. His right hand is pointing upwards, as if, by also looking at the baby, he wanted to reassure the Christ-child that he really is the Son of God.

From time to time people say that the Church should sell all its treasures and give the money to the poor. How do you sell a stained-glass window made as an expression of faith? How do you sell Michaelangelo's Pietà? How do you sell Manila Cathedral? To whom would you sell these? Wealthy persons who have built their fortune on the bakcs of the poor?

The late English journalist Malcolm Muggeridge found his faith in Calcutta when he visited a home there belonging to the Missionaries of Charity, Blessed Mother Teresa's group, and discovered a beautiful monstrance in the chapel that someone had given. Mother Teresa happily accepted this, as only the best was good enough for God. She didn't say to the donor 'why don't you give the money instead for the poor?' The experience of Muggeridge led to his writing Something Beautiful for God.

Back in 2005 while doing mission appeals for the Columbans one weekend at Westminster Cathedral in London I was confronted after one Mass by a particularly obnoxious young man who was using this kind of argument. I knew from his accent that he was not from a poor background, but very likely from a privileged one. He really tested my patience but I also was aware that when we are young and idealisic we can be obnoxious, especially when we have a very narrow view of things.

Judas complained when the woman poured expensive perfume over the feet of Jesus in order to express her love for God for her as a sinner.

The Caravaggio painting was stolen, not only from the Church of San Lorenzo in Palermo, but from all of us.

Happy New Year!

Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God

Adoration of the Shepherds, Caravaggio, (1609)

And the shepherds went with haste, and found Mary and Joseph, and the babe lying in a manger. And when they saw it they made known the saying which had been told them concerning this child; and all who heard it wondered at what the shepherds told them. But Mary kept all these things, pondering them in her heart. And the shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all they had heard and seen, as it had been told them. And at the end of eight days, when he was circumcised, he was called Jesus, the name given by the angel before he was conceived in the womb (Lk 2:16-21 RSVCE).

MESSAGE OF HIS HOLINESS

POPE BENEDICT XVI

FOR THE CELEBRATION OF THE

WORLD DAY OF PEACE

1 JANUARY 2010

IF YOU WANT TO CULTIVATE PEACE, PROTECT CREATION

1. At the beginning of this New Year, I wish to offer heartfelt greetings of peace to all Christian communities, international leaders, and people of good will throughout the world. For this XLIII World Day of Peace I have chosen the theme: If You Want to Cultivate Peace, Protect Creation. Respect for creation is of immense consequence, not least because “creation is the beginning and the foundation of all God’s works”,[1] and its preservation has now become essential for the pacific coexistence of mankind. Man’s inhumanity to man has given rise to numerous threats to peace and to authentic and integral human development – wars, international and regional conflicts, acts of terrorism, and violations of human rights. Yet no less troubling are the threats arising from the neglect – if not downright misuse – of the earth and the natural goods that God has given us. For this reason, it is imperative that mankind renew and strengthen “that covenant between human beings and the environment, which should mirror the creative love of God, from whom we come and towards whom we are journeying”.[2]


2. In my Encyclical Caritas in Veritate, I noted that integral human development is closely linked to the obligations which flow from man’s relationship with the natural environment. The environment must be seen as God’s gift to all people, and the use we make of it entails a shared responsibility for all humanity, especially the poor and future generations. I also observed that whenever nature, and human beings in particular, are seen merely as products of chance or an evolutionary determinism, our overall sense of responsibility wanes.[3] On the other hand, seeing creation as God’s gift to humanity helps us understand our vocation and worth as human beings. With the Psalmist, we can exclaim with wonder: “When I look at your heavens, the work of your hands, the moon and the stars which you have established; what is man that you are mindful of him, and the son of man that you care for him?” (Ps 8:4-5). Contemplating the beauty of creation inspires us to recognize the love of the Creator, that Love which “moves the sun and the other stars”.[4]


3. Twenty years ago, Pope John Paul II devoted his Message for the World Day of Peace to the theme: Peace with God the Creator, Peace with All of Creation. He emphasized our relationship, as God’s creatures, with the universe all around us. “In our day”, he wrote, “there is a growing awareness that world peace is threatened … also by a lack of due respect for nature”. He added that “ecological awareness, rather than being downplayed, needs to be helped to develop and mature, and find fitting expression in concrete programmes and initiatives”.[5] Previous Popes had spoken of the relationship between human beings and the environment. In 1971, for example, on the eightieth anniversary of Leo XIII’s Encyclical Rerum Novarum, Paul VI pointed out that “by an ill-considered exploitation of nature (man) risks destroying it and becoming in his turn the victim of this degradation”. He added that “not only is the material environment becoming a permanent menace – pollution and refuse, new illnesses and absolute destructive capacity – but the human framework is no longer under man’s control, thus creating an environment for tomorrow which may well be intolerable. This is a wide-ranging social problem which concerns the entire human family”.[6]


4. Without entering into the merit of specific technical solutions, the Church is nonetheless concerned, as an “expert in humanity”, to call attention to the relationship between the Creator, human beings and the created order. In 1990 John Paul II had spoken of an “ecological crisis” and, in highlighting its primarily ethical character, pointed to the “urgent moral need for a new solidarity”.[7] His appeal is all the more pressing today, in the face of signs of a growing crisis which it would be irresponsible not to take seriously. Can we remain indifferent before the problems associated with such realities as climate change, desertification, the deterioration and loss of productivity in vast agricultural areas, the pollution of rivers and aquifers, the loss of biodiversity, the increase of natural catastrophes and the deforestation of equatorial and tropical regions? Can we disregard the growing phenomenon of “environmental refugees”, people who are forced by the degradation of their natural habitat to forsake it – and often their possessions as well – in order to face the dangers and uncertainties of forced displacement? Can we remain impassive in the face of actual and potential conflicts involving access to natural resources? All these are issues with a profound impact on the exercise of human rights, such as the right to life, food, health and development.


5. It should be evident that the ecological crisis cannot be viewed in isolation from other related questions, since it is closely linked to the notion of development itself and our understanding of man in his relationship to others and to the rest of creation. Prudence would thus dictate a profound, long-term review of our model of development, one which would take into consideration the meaning of the economy and its goals with an eye to correcting its malfunctions and misapplications. The ecological health of the planet calls for this, but it is also demanded by the cultural and moral crisis of humanity whose symptoms have for some time been evident in every part of the world.[8] Humanity needs a profound cultural renewal; it needs to rediscover those values which can serve as the solid basis for building a brighter future for all. Our present crises – be they economic, food-related, environmental or social – are ultimately also moral crises, and all of them are interrelated. They require us to rethink the path which we are travelling together. Specifically, they call for a lifestyle marked by sobriety and solidarity, with new rules and forms of engagement, one which focuses confidently and courageously on strategies that actually work, while decisively rejecting those that have failed. Only in this way can the current crisis become an opportunity for discernment and new strategic planning.


6. Is it not true that what we call “nature” in a cosmic sense has its origin in “a plan of love and truth”? The world “is not the product of any necessity whatsoever, nor of blind fate or chance… The world proceeds from the free will of God; he wanted to make his creatures share in his being, in his intelligence, and in his goodness”.[9] The Book of Genesis, in its very first pages, points to the wise design of the cosmos: it comes forth from God’s mind and finds its culmination in man and woman, made in the image and likeness of the Creator to “fill the earth” and to “have dominion over” it as “stewards” of God himself (cf. Gen 1:28). The harmony between the Creator, mankind and the created world, as described by Sacred Scripture, was disrupted by the sin of Adam and Eve, by man and woman, who wanted to take the place of God and refused to acknowledge that they were his creatures. As a result, the work of “exercising dominion” over the earth, “tilling it and keeping it”, was also disrupted, and conflict arose within and between mankind and the rest of creation (cf. Gen 3:17-19). Human beings let themselves be mastered by selfishness; they misunderstood the meaning of God’s command and exploited creation out of a desire to exercise absolute domination over it. But the true meaning of God’s original command, as the Book of Genesis clearly shows, was not a simple conferral of authority, but rather a summons to responsibility. The wisdom of the ancients had recognized that nature is not at our disposal as “a heap of scattered refuse”.[10] Biblical Revelation made us see that nature is a gift of the Creator, who gave it an inbuilt order and enabled man to draw from it the principles needed to “till it and keep it” (cf. Gen. 2:15).[11] Everything that exists belongs to God, who has entrusted it to man, albeit not for his arbitrary use. Once man, instead of acting as God’s co-worker, sets himself up in place of God, he ends up provoking a rebellion on the part of nature, “which is more tyrannized than governed by him”.[12] Man thus has a duty to exercise responsible stewardship over creation, to care for it and to cultivate it.[13]


7. Sad to say, it is all too evident that large numbers of people in different countries and areas of our planet are experiencing increased hardship because of the negligence or refusal of many others to exercise responsible stewardship over the environment. The Second Vatican Ecumenical Council reminded us that “God has destined the earth and everything it contains for all peoples and nations”.[14] The goods of creation belong to humanity as a whole. Yet the current pace of environmental exploitation is seriously endangering the supply of certain natural resources not only for the present generation, but above all for generations yet to come.[15] It is not hard to see that environmental degradation is often due to the lack of far-sighted official policies or to the pursuit of myopic economic interests, which then, tragically, become a serious threat to creation. To combat this phenomenon, economic activity needs to consider the fact that “every economic decision has a moral consequence” [16] and thus show increased respect for the environment. When making use of natural resources, we should be concerned for their protection and consider the cost entailed – environmentally and socially – as an essential part of the overall expenses incurred. The international community and national governments are responsible for sending the right signals in order to combat effectively the misuse of the environment. To protect the environment, and to safeguard natural resources and the climate, there is a need to act in accordance with clearly-defined rules, also from the juridical and economic standpoint, while at the same time taking into due account the solidarity we owe to those living in the poorer areas of our world and to future generations.


8. A greater sense of intergenerational solidarity is urgently needed. Future generations cannot be saddled with the cost of our use of common environmental resources. “We have inherited from past generations, and we have benefited from the work of our contemporaries; for this reason we have obligations towards all, and we cannot refuse to interest ourselves in those who will come after us, to enlarge the human family. Universal solidarity represents a benefit as well as a duty. This is a responsibility that present generations have towards those of the future, a responsibility that also concerns individual States and the international community”.[17] Natural resources should be used in such a way that immediate benefits do not have a negative impact on living creatures, human and not, present and future; that the protection of private property does not conflict with the universal destination of goods;[18] that human activity does not compromise the fruitfulness of the earth, for the benefit of people now and in the future. In addition to a fairer sense of intergenerational solidarity there is also an urgent moral need for a renewed sense of intragenerational solidarity, especially in relationships between developing countries and highly industrialized countries: “the international community has an urgent duty to find institutional means of regulating the exploitation of non-renewable resources, involving poor countries in the process, in order to plan together for the future”.[19] The ecological crisis shows the urgency of a solidarity which embraces time and space. It is important to acknowledge that among the causes of the present ecological crisis is the historical responsibility of the industrialized countries. Yet the less developed countries, and emerging countries in particular, are not exempt from their own responsibilities with regard to creation, for the duty of gradually adopting effective environmental measures and policies is incumbent upon all. This would be accomplished more easily if self-interest played a lesser role in the granting of aid and the sharing of knowledge and cleaner technologies.


9. To be sure, among the basic problems which the international community has to address is that of energy resources and the development of joint and sustainable strategies to satisfy the energy needs of the present and future generations. This means that technologically advanced societies must be prepared to encourage more sober lifestyles, while reducing their energy consumption and improving its efficiency. At the same time there is a need to encourage research into, and utilization of, forms of energy with lower impact on the environment and “a world-wide redistribution of energy resources, so that countries lacking those resources can have access to them”.[20] The ecological crisis offers an historic opportunity to develop a common plan of action aimed at orienting the model of global development towards greater respect for creation and for an integral human development inspired by the values proper to charity in truth. I would advocate the adoption of a model of development based on the centrality of the human person, on the promotion and sharing of the common good, on responsibility, on a realization of our need for a changed life-style, and on prudence, the virtue which tells us what needs to be done today in view of what might happen tomorrow.[21]


10. A sustainable comprehensive management of the environment and the resources of the planet demands that human intelligence be directed to technological and scientific research and its practical applications. The “new solidarity” for which John Paul II called in his Message for the 1990 World Day of Peace [22] and the “global solidarity” for which I myself appealed in my Message for the 2009 World Day of Peace [23] are essential attitudes in shaping our efforts to protect creation through a better internationally-coordinated management of the earth’s resources, particularly today, when there is an increasingly clear link between combatting environmental degradation and promoting an integral human development. These two realities are inseparable, since “the integral development of individuals necessarily entails a joint effort for the development of humanity as a whole”.[24] At present there are a number of scientific developments and innovative approaches which promise to provide satisfactory and balanced solutions to the problem of our relationship to the environment. Encouragement needs to be given, for example, to research into effective ways of exploiting the immense potential of solar energy. Similar attention also needs to be paid to the world-wide problem of water and to the global water cycle system, which is of prime importance for life on earth and whose stability could be seriously jeopardized by climate change. Suitable strategies for rural development centred on small farmers and their families should be explored, as well as the implementation of appropriate policies for the management of forests, for waste disposal and for strengthening the linkage between combatting climate change and overcoming poverty. Ambitious national policies are required, together with a necessary international commitment which will offer important benefits especially in the medium and long term. There is a need, in effect, to move beyond a purely consumerist mentality in order to promote forms of agricultural and industrial production capable of respecting creation and satisfying the primary needs of all. The ecological problem must be dealt with not only because of the chilling prospects of environmental degradation on the horizon; the real motivation must be the quest for authentic world-wide solidarity inspired by the values of charity, justice and the common good. For that matter, as I have stated elsewhere, “technology is never merely technology. It reveals man and his aspirations towards development; it expresses the inner tension that impels him gradually to overcome material limitations. Technology in this sense is a response to God’s command to till and keep the land (cf. Gen 2:15) that he has entrusted to humanity, and it must serve to reinforce the covenant between human beings and the environment, a covenant that should mirror God’s creative love”.[25]


11. It is becoming more and more evident that the issue of environmental degradation challenges us to examine our life-style and the prevailing models of consumption and production, which are often unsustainable from a social, environmental and even economic point of view. We can no longer do without a real change of outlook which will result in new life-styles, “in which the quest for truth, beauty, goodness and communion with others for the sake of common growth are the factors which determine consumer choices, savings and investments”.[26] Education for peace must increasingly begin with far-reaching decisions on the part of individuals, families, communities and states. We are all responsible for the protection and care of the environment. This responsibility knows no boundaries. In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity it is important for everyone to be committed at his or her proper level, working to overcome the prevalence of particular interests. A special role in raising awareness and in formation belongs to the different groups present in civil society and to the non-governmental organizations which work with determination and generosity for the spread of ecological responsibility, responsibility which should be ever more deeply anchored in respect for “human ecology”. The media also have a responsibility in this regard to offer positive and inspiring models. In a word, concern for the environment calls for a broad global vision of the world; a responsible common effort to move beyond approaches based on selfish nationalistic interests towards a vision constantly open to the needs of all peoples. We cannot remain indifferent to what is happening around us, for the deterioration of any one part of the planet affects us all. Relationships between individuals, social groups and states, like those between human beings and the environment, must be marked by respect and “charity in truth”. In this broader context one can only encourage the efforts of the international community to ensure progressive disarmament and a world free of nuclear weapons, whose presence alone threatens the life of the planet and the ongoing integral development of the present generation and of generations yet to come.


12. The Church has a responsibility towards creation, and she considers it her duty to exercise that responsibility in public life, in order to protect earth, water and air as gifts of God the Creator meant for everyone, and above all to save mankind from the danger of self-destruction. The degradation of nature is closely linked to the cultural models shaping human coexistence: consequently, “when ‘human ecology’ is respected within society, environmental ecology also benefits”.[27] Young people cannot be asked to respect the environment if they are not helped, within families and society as a whole, to respect themselves. The book of nature is one and indivisible; it includes not only the environment but also individual, family and social ethics.[28] Our duties towards the environment flow from our duties towards the person, considered both individually and in relation to others.


Hence I readily encourage efforts to promote a greater sense of ecological responsibility which, as I indicated in my Encyclical Caritas in Veritate, would safeguard an authentic “human ecology” and thus forcefully reaffirm the inviolability of human life at every stage and in every condition, the dignity of the person and the unique mission of the family, where one is trained in love of neighbour and respect for nature.[29] There is a need to safeguard the human patrimony of society. This patrimony of values originates in and is part of the natural moral law, which is the foundation of respect for the human person and creation.


13. Nor must we forget the very significant fact that many people experience peace and tranquillity, renewal and reinvigoration, when they come into close contact with the beauty and harmony of nature. There exists a certain reciprocity: as we care for creation, we realize that God, through creation, cares for us. On the other hand, a correct understanding of the relationship between man and the environment will not end by absolutizing nature or by considering it more important than the human person. If the Church’s magisterium expresses grave misgivings about notions of the environment inspired by ecocentrism and biocentrism, it is because such notions eliminate the difference of identity and worth between the human person and other living things. In the name of a supposedly egalitarian vision of the “dignity” of all living creatures, such notions end up abolishing the distinctiveness and superior role of human beings. They also open the way to a new pantheism tinged with neo-paganism, which would see the source of man’s salvation in nature alone, understood in purely naturalistic terms. The Church, for her part, is concerned that the question be approached in a balanced way, with respect for the “grammar” which the Creator has inscribed in his handiwork by giving man the role of a steward and administrator with responsibility over creation, a role which man must certainly not abuse, but also one which he may not abdicate. In the same way, the opposite position, which would absolutize technology and human power, results in a grave assault not only on nature, but also on human dignity itself.[30]


14. If you want to cultivate peace, protect creation. The quest for peace by people of good will surely would become easier if all acknowledge the indivisible relationship between God, human beings and the whole of creation. In the light of divine Revelation and in fidelity to the Church’s Tradition, Christians have their own contribution to make. They contemplate the cosmos and its marvels in light of the creative work of the Father and the redemptive work of Christ, who by his death and resurrection has reconciled with God “all things, whether on earth or in heaven” (Col 1:20). Christ, crucified and risen, has bestowed his Spirit of holiness upon mankind, to guide the course of history in anticipation of that day when, with the glorious return of the Saviour, there will be “new heavens and a new earth” (2 Pet 3:13), in which justice and peace will dwell for ever. Protecting the natural environment in order to build a world of peace is thus a duty incumbent upon each and all. It is an urgent challenge, one to be faced with renewed and concerted commitment; it is also a providential opportunity to hand down to coming generations the prospect of a better future for all. May this be clear to world leaders and to those at every level who are concerned for the future of humanity: the protection of creation and peacemaking are profoundly linked! For this reason, I invite all believers to raise a fervent prayer to God, the all-powerful Creator and the Father of mercies, so that all men and women may take to heart the urgent appeal: If you want to cultivate peace, protect creation.


From the Vatican, 8 December 2009


BENEDICTUS PP. XVI

More on St Mels' Cathedral, burned on Christmas Day

St Mel's Cathedral, Longford, Ireland, Christmas morning

The blog of Saint Conleth's Catholic Heritage Association carries a report not only about the fire that destroyed St Mel's Cathedral on Christmas morning but about the history of the cathedral. It is also quite critical of changes in the interior of the church after Vatican II and includes some 'before' and 'after' photos to illustrate this.

The introduction to the blog states:

St. Conleth’s Catholic Heritage Association aims at safeguarding the rich liturgical heritage of the Catholic Church and promoting its use in the sacramental life of the Church in the Diocese of Kildare and Leighlin. In effect, this means that we seek the full implementation of Summorum Pontificum throughout the Diocese of Kildare and Leighlin, wherever there is a genuine pastoral need.This blog will keep you informed of the activities of St. Conleth’s Catholic Heritage Association, and of progress made in implementing Summorum Pontificum, particularly throughout the Diocese of Kildare and Leighlin.

Posts will be made on the first weekend of the month.

The Diocese of Leighlin (pronounced 'LOCKlin') was established in 1130 and united in 1678 with that of Kildare. St Conleth was appointed first bishop of Kildare around 490. Bishop James Moriarty of Kildare and Leighlin announced on 23 December that he was offering his resignation to Pope Benedict. This followed on the resignation of Bishop Donal Murray, accepted on 17 December. On the evening of 24 December Bishops Eamon Walsh and Raymond Field, auxiliaries of the Archdiocese of Dublin, announced that they were offering their resignations.

These were all in the aftermath of the Murphy Report on the abuse of children by priests in the Archdiocese of Dublin.

Catholic Church in Ireland 'burning down'

The photo of St Mel’s Cathedral, Longford, Ireland, which burned in the early hours of Christmas Day, is an apt image of the Catholic Church in Ireland at the moment. Four bishops have resigned in the last few weeks in the aftermath of the Dublin (Murphy) Report published on 26 November. It was produced by a commission set up by the Irish government to look into the sexual abuse of children by priests in the Archdiocese of Dublin.

The ceiling of St Mel's Cathedral

The four bishops were auxiliaries in the archdiocese during some of the period under examination, 1975 to 2004. The Report concluded that the Dublin Archdiocese's pre-occupations in dealing with cases of child sexual abuse, at least until the mid 1990s, were the maintenance of secrecy, the avoidance of scandal, the protection of the reputation of the Church, and the preservation of its assets. All other considerations, including the welfare of children and justice for victims, were subordinated to these priorities. The Archdiocese did not implement its own canon law rules and did its best to avoid any application of the law of the State.

Bishop Donal Murray

Pope Benedict accepted the resignation of Bishop Donal Murray of Limerick on 17 December . Bishop James Moriarty of Kildare and Leighlin announced his resignation on 23 December while auxiliary bishops Eamonn Walsh and Raymond field of Dublin informed Archbishop Diarmuid Martin late on Christmas Eve that they were submitting their resignations to Pope Benedict.

Bishop James Moriarty

Many welcomed what Bishop Moriarty said in his statement: However, with the benefit of hindsight, I accept that, from the time I became an Auxiliary Bishop, I should have challenged the prevailing culture.

Bishops Eamonn Walsh and Raymond Field

Bishop Martin Drennan

There is pressure on Bishop Martin Drennan of Galway to resign. He was an auxiliary bishop in Dublin from 1997 to 2005. I can find only one reference to actions by him in the Report. It had to do with a priest who was behaving inappropriately with teenage boys. The Report is in no way critical of Bishop Drennan. However, those demanding his resignation say that all the bishops in Dublin at the time shared responsibility for what happened.

A telling postscript to all of this is that just before Christmas a judge in Tuam, County Galway, seat of the Archbishop of Tuam, a diocese where almost 99 percent of the people describe themselves as Catholics, refused a character reference from a parish priest for a man charged with driving while drunk. 'I don’t want a reference from a parish priest. I have not time for that,' said Judge Browne. He accepted letters from a neighbour of the defendant and from his niece.

The same report added, 'Earlier this month Judge Donagh McDonagh was highly critical of a character reference given by Fr Sean Sheehy at the Circuit Criminal Court in Tralee when security man Danny Foley was sentenced to seven years in jail for sexually assaulting a woman.
Fr Sheehy later stepped down from duties as Castlegregory parish priest'. (Fr Sheehy is a retired priest from the USA who was holding down the parish while the parish priest was recovering from a serious illness. Bishop William Murphy of Kerry dissociated himself and the diocese from Father Sheehy's act. The priest was also one of about 50 men who shook hands with the convicted man, in the presence of the woman he had assaulted.)

I have read at least one letter in an Irish paper from a parent who sees the very presence of a priest in a Catholic school as a danger to children. For some, the priest in Ireland is now the very opposite of a person who can be trusted.

While preparing this I received two letters from friends in Dublin, where I’m from, both of them faithful Catholics. One wrote, I think you are living in a much better country than being here in Dublin. Life is very difficult here, with no jobs, and you know what is ongoing with the Church. The other wrote, Pope Benedict is due to get a horrible Christmas present from our Archbishop and Cardinal in the coming week. The whole thing is just awful. (Archbishop Diarmuid Martin of Dublin and Cardinal Seán Brady of Armagh met with Pope Benedict on 11 December).

Fr Michael Sinnott

But both letters from my Dublin friends had a note of hope, one saying, As I am writing, Fr Sinnott (the Columban priest who was kidnapped in the Philippines in October and held for just over a month) is being interviewed on the radio. He is a very courageous and brave man. We are all very proud of him. It was a terrible time for him. The other had this to say, The wonderful and joyous event was the home-coming of Fr Sinnott. We were all praying for his safe release and it must have been a very worrying time for you all. He sure is a great man and we couldn’t believe that his wish was to get back to the Philippines.

To some of us, Fr Michael Sinnott and others like him are an expression of the hope contained in the words of Isaiah read at the Midnight Mass on Christmas night: The people that walked in darkness, have seen a great light: to them that dwelt in the region of the shadow of death, light is risen (Is 9:2).

Happy Christmas!

Adoration of the Shepherds, Caravaggio, 1609

And it came to pass, that in those days there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that the whole world should be enrolled. This enrolling was first made by Cyrinus, the governor of Syria. And all went to be enrolled, every one into his own city. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth into Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem: because he was of the house and family of David, To be enrolled with Mary his espoused wife, who was with child.

And it came to pass, that when they were there, her days were accomplished, that she should be delivered. And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him up in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn. And there were in the same country shepherds watching, and keeping the night watches over their flock. And behold an angel of the Lord stood by them, and the brightness of God shone round about them; and they feared with a great fear. And the angel said to them: Fear not; for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, that shall be to all the people: For, this day, is born to you a Saviour, who is Christ the Lord, in the city of David. And this shall be a sign unto you. You shall find the infant wrapped in swaddling clothes, and laid in a manger. And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly army, praising God, and saying: Glory to God in the highest; and on earth peace to men of good will. (Lk 2:1-14, Gospel for Christmas - Mass at Midnight, Douai-Rheims version).