Cardinal Nichols this morning faces his biggest crisis since he became Archbishop of Westminster in 2009. On Saturday Bishop Kieran Conry – head of evangelisation for England and Wales – resigned as Bishop of Arundel and Brighton after (at least) two affairs with women became public. Now Conryhas told the Mail:
In some respects I feel very calm. It is liberating. It is a relief. I have been very careful not to make sexual morality a priority [in his sermons]. I don’t think it got in the way of my job, I don’t think people would say I have been a bad bishop.
Conry goes on to say that ‘I can’t defend myself. I did wrong. Full stop.’ But hehas just defended himself by saying that his womanising didn’t get in the way of his job, that he didn’t preach about sex, and that he was a good bishop.
This is called rubbing the noses of your flock in the sex scandal you’ve just landed on them. As I blogged on Saturday, lots of people – especially including his priests – thought he was an awful bishop, because he treated anyone who disagreed with him with cold arrogance, because he slagged off Benedict XVI and because they knew, but were too polite to say, that he was a womaniser.
Conry also ‘denied to the Mail that Church leaders had known about his affair’. And this is where Cardinal Nichols, President of the Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales, has questions to answer.
It’s likely that Nichols and his fellow bishops didn’t know about this affair – i.e. the one that, according to an unnamed furious husband, broke up a marriage. Possibly they didn’t know about the other love affair Conry has admitted to: bizarrely, when the Mail doorstepped him about the married woman on Saturday he said he was resigning over an earlier relationship.
I don’t know how many Mrs Conrys there have been over the years: the rumours date back decades. But I have it on good authority that (a) several English bishops, (b) a former papal nuncio to Britain and (c) the Congregation for Bishops in Rome were concerned about the stories. When Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor wanted to make his protégé a bishop, Conry was asked about them. And lied.
So the idiots in the Church either took him at his word, which implies an incredible level of naivety, or decided to bend the rules. According to one source, ‘the priest [now a bishop] who reported Kieran to the authorities was told that since the Congregation for Bishops was satisfied, there was nothing he could do about it’.
All of which makes Cardinal Nichols’s bland initial response to Conry’s disgrace – ‘This is a sad and painful moment. All involved in this situation are much in my prayers today’ – seem inadequate. Meanwhile, his famously incompetent press office last night ‘declined to respond to allegations of a cover-up about the bishop’s love life’.
Let’s be clear about one thing. Vincent Nichols is himself a faithful bishop who upholds Catholic teaching on sexual morality. He’s also never been Kieran Conry’s biggest fan. He could be forgiven for laying much of the blame for this outrage on his predecessor, Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor, who packed the episcopacy with ‘the boys’ – opportunistic liberals in his own mould, of whom Kieran was the most colourful example.
But there was some sort of cover-up, and it continued under the Nichols regime. And many, many Catholics, who are extremely angry at being betrayed by a senior bishop who doesn’t give a stuff what they think, are demanding to know the shape and extent of that cover-up. To quote the senior cleric who rang me yesterday, ‘Conry was not an abuser, but it needs to be said that this is the mentality that protected the paedophiles. One rule for us, another for the poor folk in the pews.’
COMMENTS FROM SPECTATOR
ReplyDelete"To quote the senior cleric who rang me yesterday, ‘Conry was not an abuser..'"
But he was. Adultery and fornication are abusive by their nature; they are abuses of God's gift of sexuality, and they abuse the people concerned by devaluing them as persons.
Don't senior clerics know Catholic teaching? Or is that, in the circumstances, a silly question?
Nothing is gained, and much is lost by pretending that all sins are equally grave. All sexual sin, looked at in one way, is an abuse of God's gift of our bodily capacity for sexuality. But we use the word 'abuser' in a different way: to imply that a person abuses their position of power over another to force them into unwilling sexual activity. You seem to be intentionally confusing the two to make a dubious point about the integrity of the churchman (you say you spoke to - wrong, see edit below).
Edit - apologies: of course you're quoting Damian, not saying you spoke to that churchman yourself. I should have noticed the inverted commas. But my point about the usage of the word 'abuser' stands.
As you will see Diana...The liberals are straight out of the woodwork to defend their man..He was a leading light and inspiration for many of them (rolls eyes)..Its exactly the same on the political blogs as well..
I do not think that anybody is making a defence of what Bishop Conry did; it was wrong. He has admitted he was wrong. What is equally as wrong is to try to make "political" points out of this tragedy for the Church just as it would be equally as wrong to try make political points about Archbishop Jozef Wesolowski.
If you are a Catholic, I assume you will invite Rome to instigate an investigation into any sin you have committed more than once. The issue here is not the number, but the sin. He has confessed, and resigned. That is it. Stop Gossiping and mud raking.
Even the Mail is not saying he has committed any other "crimes". What he did was immoral, and not illegal. There are no victims, and even if he was "pulling" every night it alters nothing. He has sinned, said so publicly, and like any other sinner has the right to move on, and his former lovers have a right to privacy too, even if they are legion.
In the real world many people deceive those closest to them ,and those they work with, and socialise with every day. In many homes there are fraudsters, rapists, adulterers, murderers, alcoholics and drug. Loving parents do not notice their children have eating disorders, are missing school, have relationship problems, are suicidal. Such ignorance is not complicity, or a cover up, it is ignorance, and something that will hurt them when truth dawns, and God help those outsiders think they "should know better", or "who should have acted". I wonder will you be be able to look anyone in the eye who has suffered these traumas and say "YOU must have known?".
2
ReplyDeleteAnd most sinners would have the humility to say "there, but for the grace God, go I".
In what way is it "clear" that there was a considerable cover up? What proof do you or anyone else have that senior clergy knew what was happening and did nothing about it? Without this proof all you are doing is peddling malicious gossip which Pope Francis quite rightly condemns.
Interesting about malicious gossip. Think of all the people who get spat on because nobody will believe they didn't know about child-abusing priests. When it's about some powerless person, yes, gossip is indeed malicious. When it's about someone with a lot of power--as all bishops do, both over ordinary Catholics and their priests--it may be about justice.
I knew about the rumours of Conry's female relationships years ago. I didn't engage in gossip then.
Now this has come out there is nothing wrong with expressing my anger and hurt.
Throughout
Church history there have been priests, bishops and popes who have
fathered children and broken their vows of celibacy. There have been
priests, bishops and popes guilty of heresy throughout Church history.
There have been been priest and bishops guilty of sexual abuse
throughout Church history. To assign errant behaviour on preferring one
style of Mass over another or saying that it is the fault of Vatican II,
Vatican I or the Council of Trent is to stretch credulity to breaking
point. The simple fact is that we are a Church of sinners who are
seeking to know Christ. All we can do and all we should do is pray for
each other, that is to pray for the sinner and not condemn. I for one
who too many motes in my eyes to worry about the specks in the eyes of
others.
Cop out. This is why people don't say anything about egregious behaviour of church authority figures. Naturally we don't need to worry about the specks in the eyes of our fellow people in the pews. However, we do need to worry about the specks in the eyes of the charismatic, highly influential man at the front of the cathedral who is supposed to be our spiritual guide, keep our priests in order and be a model to our children. He took sexual advantage of women instead of children, true, but let's not forget he took sexual advantage of women, women who (as a bishop) he should have been encouraging to seek marriage with men who could love them with their full attention or (if that story is true) to reconcile with their spouses. Bishops have a LOT of power over ordinary Roman Catholics who go to church. And it's damn well absolute when it comes to the poor priests. Why so few priests these days? Hmm... Hmm...
Bishop Conry has admitted that he has done wrong. If you know that a priest or bishop is breaking his vows then there is a duty to report this. So far all that I have seen is rumour and innuendo about who knew what and when. Various "sources" are quoted which smacks to me of a hatchet job by someone who wishes that the clock be turned back.
Only religious take vows, and secular priests, like Bishop Conry, make promises. Married people make vows, and they too are given graces particular to living out that Sacrament.
3
ReplyDeleteThere is no suggestion he took advantage of women. They were consenting adults. If anything it might be possible that they took advantage of his innocence, and naivety, as he presumably had less "worldly" experience, and one of the women, at least, was not only experienced but married. I believe Richard Branson has closed his stores, but some women approach Seminaries as they would have done the sales at a Virgin Megastore. (The same as some women think they are the ones' to turn gay men straight.
There is no suggestion he took advantage of women? Yes 'Really', there most certainly is: by the woman's husband who says so explicitly.
The woman might not see it that way. He is hardly an impartial witness. Or do you believe women are the property of men, and that a person who is judged able to enter into marriage cannot make other big choices?
The man was a BISHOP, for heaven's sake! Bishops are authority figures for all Catholics. They are looked up to by thousands (if not millions) of Catholics in their dioceses brought up to see them as their spiritual heads. If those women are Catholics, and apparently the married one is, the whole thing is akin to a mayor having an affair with an intern. And the average Catholic woman may be forgiven, these days, if she thinks a priest is fair game--enough priests left after the Second Vatican Council to make it seem that way--but the bishop, who has an STB (hmmm, so do I, not even an STL for the bishop?), should have been under no doubt whatsoever.
There only thing with your analysis is that you haven't a clue what you are talking about.
If we can have one Trad Blog after another denouncing The current Pope as being akin the anti-Christ, and offering a critique of practically every Bishop under the sun, except those who favour the old liturgy, and who need to be "forgiven" if they fall. And, for example, Rorate can claim that a Bishop, who according to The Vatican, was not "was not removed for reasons of pedophilia," Father Lombardi said. "That was not the principal problem......There were serious problems with his management of the diocese, the education of clergy and relations with other bishops,", was demoted as his favoured the Old Rite.
Imagine then if self professed die hard Trad's who claim to be more loyal to The Tradition than The Pope, and are the only one's to offer The Mass of Ages, can be so critical of people in "power", how much less would a wooly minded liberal Catholic, who likes one of the now most despised "liberal" Bishops, and who offers the protestant Mass, written on the back of an envelope during an heretical Council, see a Bishop as a major figure of power?
There is very much a suggestion he took advantage of women. The married woman, with her husband, sought help with their marriage from him.
Bishops do not have parishioners as they do not have a Parish! Likewise, few Bishops would have the time, or inclination, to do Marriage Counselling and would, surely, refer people seeking it back to their parish priest, or Catholic Marriage Care, a professional national organisation, that exists for that purpose. Even The Mail reports,"It is believed their relationship began to flourish only after her marriage hit a crisis last year", and says they met as part of general Church activities, and not on the basis of seeking Counselling from him. .In July 2014 American actor George Clooney refused to accept the Mail's apology after it printed a false story about his marriage. He called the paper "the worst kind of tabloid. One that makes up its facts to the detriment of its readers." And only recently they paid damages to JK Rowling for false claims.
Newspapers, and spurned partners, who may be at fault, do not the best witnesses make
4
ReplyDeleteYou are right but there seems to be a close connection between liberalism and laxity in many cases within the clergy.
As was evidenced by Father Marcial Maciel, founder of The Legionaries of Christ who no doubt would have implemented Summorum Pontificum to the letter?
A sample of one is no evidence.
Therefore the case of Bishop Conry proves nothing.
It would prove nothing but he is far from alone.
Where are the statistics to back up this claim? Without hard evidence nothing can be proved. We need prayer not scoring political points.
He visit the parish three times in the ten years I was there. Struck me as a smoothie who did not take his job seriously. Neglecting the flock is the greater sin for a bishop.
"Neglecting the flock is the greater sin for a bishop."
St Augustine, and Pope Francis, have both stressed that perhaps more than they have any other topic.
How in one article can you say a person was asked about somethiing "and lied", and then say there was a "cover up". Either he lied or there was a cover up. Both statements cannot be true. Likewise, and more importantly, you provide no evidence for this longstanding concern, at a higher level. That is another one of the many contradictions in your article.
Further, if people reading this blog are not familiar with your previous one they will not know that Cardinal Cormac, Cardinal Nichols, Bishop Conry and Archbishop Tartaglia, and various other members of the hierarchy, have been on your hit list for years.
They will not know, your "sources", at the heart of Rome, said Pope Emeritus Benedict was imminently near death a year ago. A fact you shared with your readership at speed.
Further, as well as claiming to be a Catholic you also believe in a previously unknown doctrine of "The Magic Circle", and that Cardinal Cormac was the equivalent of Paul Daniels, and Cardinal Nichols the equivalent of Debbie McGee. And any Bishop who does not embrace your brand of Catholicism is a "liberal".
Most sexual acts, and certainly adultery, involve two people. A person mature enough to be married can surely make their own decisions, even, wrong ones.(And we read in the Book of Genesis how one person can lead, or encourage, another person to sin. That fact, is fairly established.) And whilst the "wronged" person deserves sympathy and support, I would say in most broken relationships the "wronged" person will blame every one else, and more especially The Third Party, and not acknowledge they may have been, at least, partly responsible for the difficulties. That decision, however, whilst understandable might not be the right one.
Francis I, petitions at Vespers this week: 'that the spirit of the Holy Family of Nazareth, may bless and sanctify our families.'
There isn't one. There are many married clergy in the Catholic church. It is a Latin Rite regulation as there were advantages eg no family for a poor parish to support, priests could move easily if needed.
I think this puts Bishop Conry's misdemeanours into perspective:
There are cover-ups, and then there are cover-ups. They don't all deserve the same degree of opprobrium.
Let's do our best not to worsen the scandal, eh?
THE SILENCE OF CARDINAL NICHOLS; CARDINAL MURPHY O'CONNOR AND THE ENGLISH BISHOPS IS DEAFENING.
ReplyDeleteTHEY ARE SPENDING THE DAY IN A HUDDLE WITH THE MOST EXPENSIVE LAWYERS IN LONDON.
TO HELL WITH - GOD AND HIS WILL; THE PEOPLE OF GOD; THE DISHEARTENED CLERGY AND THE MOTHER AND CHILDREN OF THE MARRIED WOMAN.
THE HIERARCHY'S PRIORITIES NOW ARE:
1. MAKE SURE THAT THE CONRY EPISODE COSTS THEM AS LITTLE AS POSSIBLE (ALTHOUGH CONRY WILL BE GENEROUSLY CATERED FOR)
2. WAIT FOR THE FUSS TO DIE DOWN - UNTIL THE NEXT TIME.
THEY ARE NOT ASKING THEMSELVES: "WHAT WOULD JESUS WANT US TO DO"?
THESE PEOPLE ARE NOT OF GOD - THEY HAVE NO FAITH OR SPIRITUALITY - THEY ARE THE CEO'S OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION CALLED RC INC.
PAT
Well said Pat. You seem to be the only catholic priest that calls it as it is.
DeleteThe Catholic Church scares me.
Geoff Ballymoney
Bishop Buckley,
ReplyDeleteKieran Conry's penchant for women has been talked about in clerical circles in England for years by priests and bishops. Many of us wondered how he was getting away with it.
You will find that the two "affairs" currently made public are the tip of the iceberg.
There is more, and more, to come.
Priest of Westminster Archdiocese.
Brother Priest,
DeleteThank you.
What a mess.
Pat
Why was Bishop Conry walking around his own diocese - in Brighton - hand in hand with a married woman?
ReplyDeleteDid he not give a damn? London was only a short trip away - Paris a short flight.
Did he want to be caught?
Did he not care? Was he so sure that no body would challenge him.
We are feeling very hurt and betrayed today here in Arundel and Brighton. and we have no one to turn to for comfort, reassurance and guidance. We are truly "sheep without a shepherd".
Priest
Father,
DeleteI hear and feel deeply for your hurt.
The only shepherd that you and your people have now is the Good Shepherd.
Go to him. He will support and sustain you.
You have our thoughts and prayers. You will get through this.
Pat
Every diocese is now fearing more scandals about priests and bishops.
ReplyDeleteHere in Down and Connor there are a sizeable number of priests sexually active with men and women.
Many of their names are known to us, the clergy and I'm sure to Bishop Treanor.
I call upon all my fellow priests hiding scandals to come clean and resign in order to avoid more scandals.
I call upon men and women currently or formerly involved with priests to make this situation known as a a matter of urgency.
Worried Priest
Like that will happen :-)
DeleteYou are asking the poachers to turn themselves over to the game keeper.
Involved men and women should to to the media.
Chris, Downpatrick
I am a parishioner in Down and Connor and recently had my baby baptised by my parish priest. One of the male guests at the baptism told me that he and the priest had slept together a week before the baptism - except he did not put it that nicely! Had I known this in time I would not have let that priest baptise my baby. In fact the way things are going I do not know if I should have had my baby baptised at all!
ReplyDeleteDear Parishioner,
DeleteI am truly shocked by what you say! If this is true you should report it immediately to Bishop Treanor.
Down and Connor Priest
And what if Bishop Treanor does not listen to me - or do anything about this priest.
DeleteAnother priest friend of mine says that you all know about this priest's activities???
Dear Parishioner.
DeleteI do not know the priest in question.
You could tell Bishop Treanor that you are going to him in confidence as a first port of call and that if the matter is not resolved in private you will take it elsewhere.
But I do not imagine that will be the case.
Down and Connor Priest
I am a member of Down and Conor too. When a particular priest was in my parish he did not have one - but a whole string - of boyfriends. I know letters went to Bishop Walsh and Bishop Treanor about him. He is happily working and playing away!
DeleteRose (not my real name)
Cetainly this is a horrible experience, but the doctrine of the Church going back to St. Augustine assures us that the validity of the sacraments don't depend on the worthiness of the minister. Of course, they should be true pastors, but these days many seem to be giving into the world, the flesh and Mammon.
DeleteAs is often the case on this blog PAt you get some of the truth but not all of it by any means. Vincent Nichols has always disliked Kieran Conry and made no secret of this fact to his collaborators. This is because Conry was the protege of Cormac Murphy O'Connor who had no time for Nichols and who in fact lobbied for Conry to succeed him in Westminster when he retired. NIchols was the protege of Basil Hume, who Murphy OConnor did not care for as he was the epitome of all things English and Murphy OConnor, though born in England, is as Irish as they come. And so on and so on. Im sure if Nichols had the slightest evidence of Conry misbehaving he would have shopped him immediately. Evidence I say Pat. A most important tennet of common law here in England that a man be innocent until he is proved guilty. I know that on your blog you often condemn people on hearsay, but in accusing Cardinal Nichols of a cover up you are simply wrong. If any one has questions to answer it is Cardinal Murphy O'Connor who made Conry the bishop to succeed him in his diocese of Arundel and Brighton when he was promoted to Westminster. Priest of the A&B Diocese
ReplyDeleteFather,
DeleteI take your point - and if I am wrong about this I apologise.
However can I ask you a question?
If Kieran Conry's "weaknesses" were known by so many clergy in England and Wales - surely Cardinal Nichols knew? He cannot be that out of touch with the church he presides over. It seems to me that the birds in the trees knew about this.
And even if Cardinal Nichols had no hand in the appointment of Conry - and I accept that may very well be true - should he not have spoken to Rome about Conry and arranged for him to go - at an earlier date - and without this ultimate scandal?
Pat
We can only thank God then that we did not have the resignation of Cardinal Conry this weekend!
DeletePP London
Thank God Murphy O'Connor didn't get his way. I know of three priests who have been pressurised by MOC into accepting bishoprics who have flatly refused because they have "pasts".
DeleteConry didn't just have a past. He has a "present". And If I know the man he will have a future :-)
DeleteWe still have had no action about Cardinal Keith O'Brien!!!
ReplyDeleteTimmy (Glasgow)
Priest of A&B Diocese - 17:59 above
ReplyDeleteSeems to be suggesting that the cause of all this scandal is "Irishness" !!
Only a very few of the Catholic Church's "Bonking Bishops" are Irish.
Do I detect English snobbishness and prejudice in his comments?
A Very English Priest
No, not at all, I was merely trying to point out that there has long been a rivalry between the court of Murphy O'Connor and Nichols. They each had their patrons. In the case of Murphy O'Connor, Archbishop Derek Worlock (whose Secretary he had been) and Vincent Nichols, who initially was Worlock's blue eyed boy and then attached his career to the coattails of Basil Hume. However, now you mention it "VEP" the three bishops in recent history who have had "trouble with women", ie had affairs, have all had Irish backgrounds: Eamon Casey, Roddy Wright and now Kieran Conry. Maybe there is something in what you say.
ReplyDeleteIf you wanted to take that further - maybe Irish bishops have affairs with women.
DeleteCould it be that, in general, English bishops are fonder of men?
I'm sure you are aware of the talk surrounding several English local ordinaries?
A Very English Priest (who knows)
Gentlemen, Gentlemen,
DeleteAre you not both being rather childish?
Priest
Yes, yes, we all know about ……….and …….. However I would imagine that most english priests and bishops who are gay are so exhausted with their ghastly round of confirmations and appointments, that they have little time for affairs, and ceratinly none of the current crop of recent, and in my opinion, hopeless, appointees have any skeletons in their closets as Nichols gives them the third degree to their faces when they are being sounded out. A good friend whom Nichols wished to appoint refused as he had had an affair with a layman when a younger man. He had the sense to realise that his past may well catch up with him if he were in the public eye. I do feel very sorry for KC. A good man, but like most of us, flawed and whose loneliness made him make choices that have cost him dear. I wouldn't be surprised though if he didn't resign the priesthood and marry. The first step towards that taken in his comments to the Mail about being "relieved". Bishop Roddy Wright used the same term before jumping ship into marital bliss! Not.
ReplyDeleteWhat we need:
ReplyDelete1. A whole new theology and pastoral practice around human sexuality.
2. Voluntary celibacy for those few with that gift.
3. A priesthood open to married men and women.
4. A priesthood open to gay men and women in committed relationships.
Until then we will have all these scandals
Pat
Celibacy has nothing to do with it. There has to be better selection of candidates and seminary fomation among other things. Are you so naive to think that a married clergy would avoid scandals such as pedophilia and adultery by clergy? Given the rampant adultery promient in and the breakup of so many marriages it is naive to think that a married clergy would solve the scandals. It is likely that they would be more frequent. In America the percentage of sexual abuse of minors among Protestant clergy is about the same as that aming Catholics. The embezzlement of parish funds is worse among Protestants. Take note and analyse properly.
DeleteTotally agree Pat well said. I hear that there is renewed interest across the water in Ireland about Fr Michael Cleary and the claims of a young american woman that she too was his child by his housekeeper. Allegedly Cleary and her mother were told to have her adopted following a story that she was the result of a rape by a deacon. Pat I think you should look into this. Venerable One
ReplyDeleteVenerable One,
ReplyDeleteIt is already prepared for this Blog tomorrow :-)
Pat
The wheels are coming off the cart!
ReplyDeleteTruly cant wait. Wasnt Cleary the"hatchet man" the Irish bishops put up to defend celibacy and contraception? Was he the goon that did the warm up act for Bishop Casey at the papal visit to Ballybrit, Galway?
ReplyDeleteYes - all that and more.
DeleteA truly despicable man.
I will tell the story tomorrow and the next day.
Pat
What I feel here is that we are all made to make promises by the Roman Catholic Church we ultimately can’t live up to because we are human and because we fall. Keeping vows for a lifetime, particularly when made early in life when we are idealistic and not realistic is very hard. As a Catholic woman in an unhappy marriage with four children I feel a huge sadness. If I do nothing, (which is what I am doing and have done for 7 years) I can maintain the outward appearance to my family, friends and priest of the dutiful, faithful, happy wife and mother but inwardly I am crying and I am living a lie. I have not been unfaithful in that there is no third party involved but what do my vows mean if in my heart and head I have come to resent them. All marriages have ups and downs – I know this. We have had our downs – 4 years ago we lost a child in a tragic drowning accident – there is no bigger down that that in anyone’s life. We are still together through that but we are not stronger for it. We co-exist. I sought counselling twice and was told by one counsellor “not only has the ship sailed in your relationship but it has sunk as well”. What is stopping me from moving on? Those counsellors accept I should move on but because I was raised Catholic the guilt, shame and sense of failure I would feel at breaking my vows is overwhelming. I know that there is also the pain I would cause my husband and children but I think in time we would all be happier. When my 11 year old daughter said to me “Mummy, have you ever kissed Daddy?” I know that I am not showing her how to have a happy loving relationship.
ReplyDeleteWhat I am trying to say is that there must be a lot of Catholics out there, be they Bishops, Priests, men and women, married, gay and straight who are living tortured lives full of lies even if they are outwardly adhering to what they promised because they want to do the right thing. I accept we must have a moral code and ideal to live to and strive for but if it is too much and we fail we should also be able to say so and not be persecuted for it. It comes as no surprise to me at all that Bishop Conry says it is a relief – I suspect he did want to be spotted with this woman. I think he loves this woman and wants to be with her. Her marriage will have been over long before a Church Party and her husband’s threats to sue the Church are just hurt pride. A woman with children would not risk a fling with a supremely “unavailable” man unless her marriage was ostensibly over. For all the scandal and finger pointing we are forgetting that they are a couple who just might genuinely love each other enough to risk all the shame and guilt and sense of failure imposed on them because they couldn’t fulfil vows made many many years before they met. If this is the case, I personally wish them happiness.
An insightful comment which well portrays the dilemmas of the human condition, (non static, and ever subject to change), within the framework controlling clutches of the RC church, ( moralistic, totalitarian, paternalistic, male chauvinistic etc etc)
DeleteI wish you well in the hope you will move onwards into a happier and healthier situation.
MournemanMichael