Tuesday, 9 May 2017

CHURCH CORRUPTION - A BACKGROUND

Many thoughtful readers of this Blog are interested in the whole background to the state the Catholic Church finds itself in at present.


It is a very complex story.


This film on the factors that came together to cause Pope Benedict to resign is a vital part of the sad and horrifying story.

It is not a short film. But to my mind it is gripping and disturbing film.

Spend the time to watch it.

You will be both enlightened and deeply shocked.

But you will have a better grasp of the sad state the Church is in and the factors that have brought it to it's sorry state.


26 comments:

  1. Benedict moved to remove Maciel within weeks of his election. He also anulled the fourth vow of this strange congregation which forbade any criticism of the superiors. This was in no way related to his resignation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Benedict was head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith from 1981 - 2005 - 24 years and responsible for church discipline.

      He received countless complaints against Maciel for that quarter century and did nothing - because John Pole was protecting Maciel.

      Hardly a moral stance?

      Obedience to John Pole and keeping his job came before the protection of children !

      Delete
    2. Here Pat cop on. You know the politics of the vatican. The Secretary of state protected the legionaries, so there was nothing Ratzinger could do.

      Delete
    3. Maybe a more principled man might have resigned over such an important issue as the protection of children ???

      Delete
    4. How easy it is for you Pat to throw stones and never offer anything by way of an answer. You were probably running around in your sutane when JPII was here.

      Delete
    5. I was indeed :-(

      And, God forgive me, I brought three bus loads of teenagers from Belfast to cheer Mickey Cleary, Eamon Annie Murphy Casey and JP11 at Galway!

      But for the last 30+ years I have had my eyes opened and now recognise it all for the charade it was.

      If Frankie stopped for coffee in Larne on his possible forthcoming visit I would not walk around the corner to see him now.

      Delete
    6. But you would, of course, invite him in for coffee at yours, or maybe not Pat? What do you think?

      Delete
    7. Of course I would - and would welcome the opportunity to ask him some questions and tell him a few things about Irish Catholicism.

      I would do this with normal common respect but with a "firm purpose".

      Delete
    8. Pat, I have no doubt at all regarding your respect and would love to be a fly on the wall during that conversation. Can I ask you to engage in a daydream for a minute? If Pope Francis DID ask to meet you and to discuss what you considered to be the critically important questions regarding the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland and globally, and to provide some brief suggestions on how to progress, what would you say? I think this would make a great blog, or series of blogs. Yes, Pat, I know that this blog in the main deals with nothing but these issues, but I am very interested to know what your prioritising would be and the way the Church may change to address the issues you identify.

      Delete
  2. MourneManMichael9 May 2017 at 08:14

    John Pole?
    I know John Paul 2nd was a Pole, but why not call him by his proper name?
    Someone commented recently that referring to male clerics disparagingly by giving them a female name also denigrates the female gender. I hope the reference to John Paul was in error, perhaps from dictated speech typing. Not that I would wish to defend John Paul. It's just that I wouldn't want the blog to descend further into the current snidey name calling.
    MMM

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. St John Pole may be more appropriate.

      Delete
    2. MMM, The term disparage means "to bring reproach or discredit upon; lower the estimation of".

      I believe that for very good reasons I am entitled to bring reproach upon, discredit and lower the estimation of JP.

      Especially as so many rushed to cover up all the wrong he did by making him a "saint".

      I am not merely calling him names.

      I am showing my contempt for him and all harm and suffering he caused.

      Delete
    3. MMM 8.14 When I worked for Rochdale Council I was pulled up for putting Rockdale in documents. It was an autocorrect in the PC. Took me ages to figure it out. In the end I had to manually add the correct word to the dictionary.🤔.I also dislike the way some clerics feminise others via in house humour. On one level it may be harmless but on another it may point to a more disturbing issue. Notice how those in gangland develop their own culture and customs. Question being is Roman Catholic Clergy in certain circles another form of gang.

      Delete
    4. I found the video informative. The clip with the lady in the yellowish top most disturbing. It shows how far removed from reality some clergy are. Victims are being crucified by abusers who are trying to externalise their frustrations. Going forward enough is enough.

      Delete
    5. In what way, other than casual racism, does a reference to JP2's ethnic origin disparage him?

      Delete
    6. I am not being the least racist as I have been to Poland and hold all the Polish people I have met in the highest possible regard - great workers, friendly people etc.

      John Pole is simply a playful and in my eyes a funny twist on Paul / Pole.

      Just like I have no objection to being Paddy the Irishman when it is not being used in a deliberately racist way.

      Lets not fear the PC police.

      Delete
  3. The story of Maciel is a story of corruption, intrigue and cover up. It is hard to understand why John Paul II seemed to protect him so much; as Cardinal Prefect of the CDF Papa Ratzi would have been fully au fait with all the details of the complaints over many years. It goes to show how hard-wired these men are to obedience to the Pope; such blind loyalty while in some circumstances may be seen as admirable, in this case is shameful.
    It is however to Papa Ratzi's credit that he moved on Maciel so decisively when he became Pope.
    What we see here is typical of all institutions - putting the institution before all else - a recipe for disaster.

    Every reformer in the history of the Church eventually reaches the stage when they themselves and their followers are in need of reform too. What a pity we're not angelic creatures incapable of sin or deceit! In the meanwhile we muddle all in all our imperfection relying on the Spirit to keep us on track,
    St. Patrick of The Oratory - Ora Pro nobis!

    ReplyDelete
  4. :-)

    I agree with much of what you say and indeed there are many ways in which I need to be "reformed".

    But there is a difference between weakness and evil.

    And there is a difference between human frailty and institutionalised corruption.


    ReplyDelete
  5. John Paul II was pope for a quarter of a century in which all the present troubles of the church really started to brew - the paedophilia cover up, the vocations crisis, the collapse of the church in Western Europe, liturgical abuse, clericalism, the elevation of the person of the pope to a superstar/superhero and then the equation of the Church to that person. It's sometimes very hard to distinguish spirituality from narcissism. Maciel was obviously a narcissist. Maybe JPII protecting him was a case of honour among narcissists.

    Benedict looked and sounded like a Bond villain. And he does wear Prada. But look beyond appearances and you'll see a model of humility compared with his predecessor.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I tend to agree with 15:36 John Paul is something of an enigma. Bear in mind that the age of instant communications arrived with a bang at the early stages of his pontificate and suddenly what happened in any obscure diocese in the world could become headline news, this was an entirely new scenario and the church was caught on the back foot unable to cope. Couple this explosion of IT with an institution more used to respond in years rather than months, days or even minutes and the resulting scenario is a disaster.
    Pat says there is a difference between weakness and evil and there is a partial truth in that statement - but all evil begins in weakness and creates a climate where it can flourish. As regards Maciel and the legionaries, the weakness of those around him enabled him to become more and more brazen in his wrongdoings to the point where he clearly crossed the line and became a perpetrator of evil.
    John Paul was bedazzled by the superficial success of the legion and the enormous numbers of vocations they attracted, he may also have been influenced by the financial incentives offered to the Vatican. Certainly Cardinal Sodano was a beneficiary of such 'incentives' and their major protector. Even Saints can be duped!

    ReplyDelete
  7. There was once a picture of him leaning against his staff, looking totally broken. The caption under it said "The wolves are circling". He should have been a professor in a university. Pope Francis is a lot tougher. He knows corruption when he sees it.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The kind of adulation that any Pope receives these days is mindblowing and it must be difficult for any incumbent of the office not to be inflated by it. In the pre TV era the Pope was an almost mythological figure in a remote foreign city, now his every waking moment can be beamed across the world, and he is welcomed on his travels like a pop star.
    JP2 certainly seemed to enjoy this aspect of his life - maybe that was the actor in him? Despite this negative side to his persona he was also a man of deep and clear thinking faith -sadly as the Maciel affair clearly shows he was capapble of being deceived, but I wouldn't rubbish his life for that. Remember when we point the finger at another there are three fingers pointing back at ourselves.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He knew what Maciel was at and protected him for money for the Vatican and Poland.

      Delete
    2. You not what you speak about!!!!!!

      Delete
  9. What are u trying to say. 21.51

    ReplyDelete