Sunday, 14 May 2017

NEW NUNCIO TO IRELAND



Ireland’s new papal nuncio Archbishop Jude Thaddeus Okolo (60) speaks English, French, Italian, Igbo, Spanish and German. Photograph: Catholic Communications Office
ARCHBISHOP OKOLO


Pope Francis has appointed Archbishop Jude Thaddeus Okolo (60) to the role of apostolic nuncio to Ireland, the first African priest to ever hold the diplomatic role in Ireland.
The news was welcomed by Archbishop of Armagh Eamon Martin, “I warmly welcome the appointment by his Holiness Pope Francis of Archbishop Jude Thaddeus Okolo as Apostolic Nuncio to Ireland, and I wish him many blessings in his new role”.
The position of Apostolic Nuncio is the papacy’s diplomatic representative in Ireland.
“Archbishop Okolo’s rich experience in the diplomatic service of the Holy See means that he brings many gifts to bear on his new mission in Ireland” Archbishop Martin said.
Archbishop Okolo will take up the role during the summer, and replaces the outgoing apostolic nuncio to Ireland Charles Brown, who finished his term in March and will now move to Albania to take up a new diplomatic post.
Jude Thaddeus Okolo is from Kano in Nigeria, where he entered the priesthood in 1983.
He has formerly served as an apostolic nuncio to the Central African Republic and Chad in 2008, and then as the Pope’s diplomatic representative to the Dominican Republic in 2013.
Archbishop Okolo speaks English, French, Italian, Igbo, Spanish and German.
Before becoming a apostolic nuncio, Jude Thaddeus Okolo had worked in the diplomatic service of the Holy See, where he was stationed in Sri Lanka, before going on to be a pontifical representative in Hati, Switzerland, the Czech RepublicAustralia and the Antillean Islands.
PAT SAYS:
It does not really matter who the papal nuncio to Ireland is - Charlie Brown - Okolo or Mickey Mouse.
Every papal nuncio is simply a mouthpiece for the curia in the Roman Catholic Church based at The Vatican.
They are all "company men" who will always toe the line.
There is no such a thing as a RADICAL papal nuncio.
Why the Vatican ambassador has to be a priest and an archbishop is beyond me.
Priests are supposed to be out ministering to a flock - not dabbling in politics and bring stories back to Rome.
As a Nigerian Okolo will probable be a conservative and right wing RC.
As somebody said on yesterday's blog the Nigerians are famous for being homopbobic.
I wonder will that mean anything for Gaynooth?
I wonder will it affect Dermo ordaining Gorgeous.
We will see.
--------------------------------------
INDEPENDENT CATHOLIC CHURCH
A number of us are in the process of creating an interim website for the new Independent Catholic Church.
We should have it up and going within a day or two - complete with contacts etc.

56 comments:

  1. Oh Pat, PaT, Pat your prejudice has blinded you to all truth. Rome is your spiritual origin and real home...recant your heresy now, abjure error and return to the fold. There will be more rejoicing in heaven....etc. Come home Pat and stop the nonsense.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As the Duke of Wellington famously said:

      "Just because you were born in a stable does not mean you are a horse" :-)

      Delete
  2. Pat,
    I am assured that the following is factual. In the room where the Swiss Guards dress in Rome there is a large photo of your good-self with a warning that you are a bogus bishop and should never be permitted entry to the Vatican. You're famous!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Now if that was true of me, I would truly think I had arrived.
      Congratulations, Pat.

      Delete
    2. So if I go there I will have to enter by the back door - the Bank of the Holy Spirit entrance :-)

      Delete
    3. This is untrue and nonsense Pat. If I went there with you as two dressed Clerics all we needed to do is go to St Anne's Gate. We ask for the Vatican Newspaper Office and we will be waved through to inside the walls of Vatican City. No one would bat an eye at you or I.

      Delete
    4. I wouldn't bet on that. My Roman source will attempt a sneaky photo of your portrait. There are three other bogus bishops in the rogues gallery connected to Garabandal and Palma de Troya.

      Delete
    5. Well get us the pics then.

      Delete
  3. Jude Thaddeus Okolo's will arrive in Ireland from his role as Apostolic Nuncio to the Dominican Republic where his immediate predecessor was Józef Wisołowski (1948-2015) who was laicised by the Vatican at the end of the first stage of his canonical trial there for possessing child pornography. He died of natural causes before the trial was completed.

    This situation would have been a very difficult and delicate assignment for his predecessor and Okole must have managed the situation competently. Presumably, that is one of the reasons for his transfer to Ireland now.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hopefully, that competent management will have included having supported the victims of child sexual abuse.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Nigerian Catholics are "conservative" when it suits them. They have a problem with priests covertly marrying and with ostensibly Catholic men covertly practising polygamy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They have another problem with young Catholic priests regarding themselves as superior and special creatures.

      Delete
    2. what experience do thou speak from Pat?

      Delete
  6. Why don't you just affiliate with the Liberal Catholic Church International?

    ReplyDelete
  7. The new nuncio will give the church a chance to work on inclusion equality and diversity in practice. He ticks all the legal boxes. The prophecy is true that those from mission lands would return to evangelise Ireland

    ReplyDelete
  8. Surely a title such as Independent Catholic Congregational Church would leave it open to grow internationally

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's a very provocative (good) comment you make.

      It stress that the church governance is decided by the whole congregation and not just the clergy.

      It raises a few interesting questions:

      1. Does the congregation both "call" and ordain the pastor?

      2. Does it do away with the notion of apostolic succession?

      3. Can the congregation decide that the church will mot believe in something - ie@ the Virgin Birth, physical resurrection etc.

      4. Is there a balance between traditional revelation and the Holy Spirit working anew through the congregation?

      As I say a myriad of interesting questions.

      Congregationalism is traditionally "Protestant".

      How would Catholic Congregationalism be different?

      Delete
    2. As we saw yesterday, there is something of a want of coherent theological thought among those in favour of the ICC (seminarians having sex are not doing anything objectively wrong but are fair game because they belong to an organisation which teaches that those acts are wrong (even though objectively they aren't)). I'd suggest you bring in a few people with a bit more intellectual firepower to be honest.

      Delete
    3. This is not what I said.

      The seminarians ARE doing wrong.

      I do agree that any new movement needs to have a good basic theology.

      Delete
    4. But you have yet to specify WHY they are doing wrong.

      You offered the charge of abusing straight seminarians and celibate ones, but then agreed that this would not be the case for each and every case of a seminarian having gay sex. So that is not the reason they are doing wrong.

      You then pressed the charge of hypocrisy. They may well be hypocrites, but that does not make a seminarian having sex with another man objectively morally wrong.

      Another prominent commentator argued for sex being something instinctual and therefore that while casual sexual encounters are not the ideal, they are not to be considered seriously wrong.

      So on what basis do you argue that they ARE doing wrong? Basing this, of course, on the central tenet you proposed that the guidelines for sexual encounters is that no one should be used or abused.

      Because so far, I haven't seen any argument advanced, and while is based on the theology that you adhere to, which demonstrates their wrongdoing.

      Delete
    5. It doesn't matter if male priests have sex with each other, just as long as they make it clear to the laity who naïvely believe they are celibate. I honestly wish the church would allow married priests and SSM and stop all this cloak and dagger. I would be quite happy to see priest and married partner in the presbytery. I don't think celibacy is essential to the priesthood. I can remember seeing the film "Priest" a few years ago and feeling very sorry for the young man in question.

      Delete
    6. It's very hard to trust a person who preaches one thing, but practices another. If you can't trust him with that, why should you believe him when he teaches about the Trinity, the incarnation or the real presence.

      Delete
    7. I agree with you Jane as it happens, but I'm looking at it from the perspective of Pat's theology as I cannot see there is logical consistency in it. One cannot on the one hand say that sexual ethics extend only to 'do not use or abuse' then on the other hand lambast the seminarians for what they did.

      But on your second point about preaching one thing but doing another I disagree. What are the options? Does one simply accept a silly doctrine about gays not being allowed to have sex? Or, like most married Catholics who practice contraception, does one just ignore an unjust rule and carry on?

      Pat's point seems to be that the rule is unjust. But, because the seminarian has signed up for it, then it is a moral disgrace for them to behave differently, even if the rule is objectively silly. Now, if they are out preaching to the world that a gay man must be continent, while they themselves are having sex, that would be a different matter because the impact of their actions would affect others not just themselves. But if Pat is saying that the rule is simply do not use or abuse, what basis does he have for complaining about their behaviour? And what is the difference between the seminarian and a gay sexually active practising Catholic receiving communion? Both are "hypocrites" according to that logic.

      If we take the logic of the argument that because one has signed up to be a Catholic seminarian/priest one is thereby obliged to accept and behave in accordance with every jot and tittle of Catholic canon law etc. That would then mean that a priest who breaches the confessional seal to protect a child from abuse (an action I would applaud) has broken Catholic law, and therefore falls into the same logical category as those seminarians if we follow through on the logic.

      None of this is to say that promiscuous sexual behaviour is to be encouraged. But having read the blog regularly for a year now, I am none the wiser on what basis Pat believes that the seminarians have done wrong. Certainly, from a rational perspective, I can see the point of view of a conservative Catholic - though I would not agree with it.

      Delete
    8. Anonymous at 18:12 - the problem with some Maynooth seminarians is that they are/have been using apps seeking regular sexual encounters.

      They are making no effort to remotely follow basic sexual morality and they are being facilitated in living their chosen lifestyles by the very authorities that are supposed to be overseeing their formation.

      Even if celibacy was abolished and SSM recognised by the Church, their antics are irreconcilable with Christian behaviour. It is dysfunctional.

      Delete
    9. @19:02, I get all that, but according to the sexual theology proposed by Pat, the rule is to have sexual relations which do not use or abuse. So taking Pat's theology as the starting point, I am interesting to know why he/others with a similar viewpoint, consider it to be morally objectionable.

      Of course, from the viewpoint of traditional Roman Catholic morality, I see your point. But on the basis of the theology espoused by Pat, it is not logical to deduce that their chosen lifestyles are sinful.

      So either I am missing something (if so, what?), or there is a fundamental disconnect between the reasons that commentators such as you find such behaviour objectionable and the reasons that bloggers/commentators such as Pat consider it objectionable - the reasoning simply cannot be the same given the theological differences in understanding sexual morality. You have said that they make no effort to remotely follow basic sexuality morality, but on the sexual morality model proposed by Pat (do not use and abuse) it really cannot be said that they have done anything wrong.

      Delete
    10. Let me be very clear to you, 19:53 - I follow Christian morality as it is taught by the Church from Christ.

      Our Lord has condemned, in the Gospel, sexual immorality and promiscuity as among those 'evil things' that come from within the heart and make a person unclean. He has forbidden us to look at another with lust. His is the only morality that matters.

      There is no room in the seminary - much less the priesthood - for those who use Grindr etc.

      Delete
    11. Let me also be extremely clear to you 20:52 - your morality and theological musings are of no interest to me whatsoever.

      This is a discussion about the theological underpinnings of the sexual moral ethic proposed by Pat. Your contribution is entirely irrelevant and of no interest. If you are uninterested to discover why certain people hold different moral positions to you, then at least have the courtesy to stand aside and spectate rather than muddy the waters.

      Delete
    12. I will do no such thing. I am not interested in your muddled musings and the murky waters in which you are clearly up to your neck! The only moral position of any relevance is what Our Lord Jesus Christ has revealed in the Sermon on the Mount. Period.

      Delete
    13. You'll do what your told. This discussion is for those who are able to keep up intellectually, not for people such as yourself.

      Delete
    14. I'd like to see you make me, anon @14:37! LOL.

      Are you Maggie Carter per chance?

      You sound just like her :-D

      Delete
  9. A PRIEST'S THOUGHTS:

    CLERICALISM FLIP SIDE: CONGREGATIONALISM

    After Vatican II and in order to promote the “priesthood” of the laity, most parishes in the United States began Parish Councils which were modeled after elected “legislatures” in cities, states and nations. It was based upon representation in the parish , electing members to the council and giving parishioners a vote in the parish.

    Later, as experience dictated that this model was not appropriate for the Catholic Church which is hierarchical, governed by canon law and diocesan policies, parish councils developed into “pastoral councils.” These councils respected canon law which stated that all such councils are advisory to the pastor and do not usurp his canonical authority in making decision in the parish, but rather advise him in making those decisions.

    Most Catholics though, believed parish councils and pastors should consult with the entire parish, take votes from a congregational view and adhere to the will of the people. Of course, that is a corrupt view of Catholicism. We see it especially in the “ultra-liberal” “Voice of the Faithful” movement in the Church following revelations about the sex abuse scandal. These tiny in number, but vocal lay Catholics want to run the Church, hire and fire their priests, elect their bishops and be more like the Episcopal Church in governance, locally, nationally and internationally.

    The only problem with this approach is that it is not Catholic, does not follow our hierarchical structure of things, which the Church believes to be infallibly revealed, does not follow canon law and also leads small groups of laity fighting for more power in the Church.It becomes very divisive. They tend to have contempt for the hierarchy and the canon laws that govern the exercise of authority.Often they desire to usurp that authority over perceived and actual abuse of authority or mismanagement of authority. They want to call the shots, review all financial records, hire and fire and have a voice in micro managing the parish and its pastor. They want to know who is paid what, and they threaten to withhold their offerings until things are the way they want them to be. Don't you just love these pseudo-Catholics on the right and the left and in the middle?

    In other words, we see the laity striving to become more like bishops and priests and striving to make the bishops and priests more like the laity. It is the clericalization of the laity and the laicization of the clergy! It happens not only in ultra-progressive, liberal parishes but also in even conservative, traditional parishes. The root desire though is control, to wrestle it away from its rightful canonical recipient. Those on the right who try to take over are as much a part of "AM-Church" that they so decry concerning those on the left!

    Congregationalism becomes the flip side of clericalism when individuals or groups of individuals not knowing canon law and the limits of their advice to the pastor, begin to usurp the pastor’s role, challenge his canonical authority and strive to act as parishioners in the Protestant form of congregationalism as experienced in most Baptist Churches as well as in many Episcopal Churches. In other words, these parishioners strive to make the pastor’s life miserable.

    We all know of the havoc that clericalism can bring to a parish when the pastor doesn’t follow canon law and rules the parish autocratically or so delegates his authority, that little kingdoms develop in the parish and power plays between various lay groups and paid staff members take place. Both extremes harm the unity of the parish.

    Catholics should be Catholics--that means embracing the Catholic Church, her hierarchy in good times and in bad and giving advise where appropriate needed and requested.

    Posted by Fr. Allan J. McDonald at Tuesday, May 24, 2011

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Perhaps I am a pseudo Catholic. At the moment I am not doing anything for the parish. 6 years ago I was facing death and under 3 consultants, but I still went to church. Having been told I was lazy and suffered from false humility, I got very annoyed and told them to leave me alone. This summer my husband was in a bad road accident, suffered a broken neck and spine and again I was put under intense pressure. I have no desire to run the parish, but I am sick of being bullied. I have done 26years in the parish and 15 in a retreat centre. The trouble is if you show the slightest sign of intelligence, they never let go. Just how much power does the bishop have over a lay person?

      Delete
    2. None at all.. unless the lay person consents to give away his own personal power. Think carefully about that.

      Delete
  10. The most power crazed in my opinion are a certain type of laity. As the priest steps back they push themselves forward to fill the vacuum.

    ReplyDelete
  11. A certain Armagh Priest is currently running around Lourdes dripping in lace. It's causing many to question what era he belongs to at such a young age? Not much other lace on display which makes him look a bit obvious.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Check out the RTE Mass for Vocations Sunday to see why some are turning to masculine lace and away from camp flowing vestments.

      Delete
    2. I would hardly describe lace as masculine.

      Delete
    3. 19.04 I have never heard such a ridiculous argument in all my life. I would prefer to see a Priest in free flowing vestments than swanning around dressed to the nines in frilly lacey numbers. What is that all about? For a young person to be doing it makes it even more bizarre.

      Delete
    4. 17.25 I think you are just picking on this person because he happens to be MC to Eamon Martin. He laughs out loudly sometimes, he is a recent product of Maynooth, he dresses in lace and pre Vatican II Vestments and yes, he may be a bit camp but it's not all a crime you know.

      Delete
    5. Ironic isn't it? One could hardly call the big wavy modern vestments as anything approaching as masculine as a fiddleback. Check out that RTE Mass to see a feminised Vatican 2 Valerie liturgy.

      Delete
    6. He probably wears baby-dolls in bed too.

      Delete
    7. Well there is enough screeching queens around Lourdes as we speak, we don't need another one. Late night Cafes rendezvous by screeching clergy scandalise the laity and the locals.

      Delete
    8. @20:49, perhaps you aren't used to hearing arguments that aren't an echo of your own opinion?

      This absurd idea that a young priest should show a fondness for the insipid and saccharine sweet liturgy so beloved of the Spirit of Vatican 2 crowd, flouncing around in camp free flow vestments, where did you get that?

      Check out that absurd Vocations Sunday Mass on RTE and have a long hard think about why ANY young person would want to be anywhere near such a display of foolery.

      The YOUNG have zero interest in the modernised faddish church and that is why they are leaving in droves. Let's not confuse the preferences of the young with Past Their Sell By Date Spirit of Vatican 2 groupies.

      It is disturbing to see that so many commentators are so parochial that they are seemingly unaware that all over the world there is a huge growth in the traditional liturgy of the Church while the insipid modern rite dwindles.

      As Pat himself said in an earlier blog, the ONLY seminary he was aware of that did not have a homosexual sub-culture was Econe. And they ALL wear lace at Econe.

      So put a sock in it about the lace. It's pathetic.

      Tridentine Travis.

      Delete
    9. Wow... sense at last - well done TT

      Delete
    10. Lourdes is already well known for its... well, let's just say: "facilities". The Gents for the rest of us.

      Delete
  12. God the verbal diarrhoea is flowing here today!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Don't worry if it's above your level, that is why not everyone is called to leadership in the church. But there's a place for everyone!

      Delete
  13. Ordering Gorgeous to be defagged will probably be his first dictate of his Nunciature.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Any news on the new Abbot of Glenstal. He makes his predecessor look positively butch.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He can kick his height, apparently.

      Delete
    2. Kick his own height, can he? I am sure that could be very useful....if you were a mule!

      Delete
  15. Ah sure if talkin does ye good....scutter on!

    ReplyDelete
  16. And all this division just goes to prove the point made yesterday.
    People by there own natural drive may want different things. It was myself who posted tge congregation aspect this morning, not only to see the reactions but to tease out thought and the thought process of some individuals. Needless to say I am not surprised.

    Well as for myself Pat I have problem in offering you whatever assistance you may need with the new venture. This I do so freely wyithout any compulsion or expectations and difinitely for no glory. I would also realise that I may not be accepted by such a group due to my views nor I suppose would I be expected to join.
    For example I am sure no one has considered the aspects of ecumenism or the protection of vulnerables etc etc as it hasn't featured in any of the comments. But hey at least I've said I'm prepared to help.

    Enjoy the good work Pat.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So glad you want to be involved Big Hank. I look forward very much to hearing your views as we all go forward together. I am interested in Ecumenism, Interspirituality and New Monasticism. :-) I love folk mass style music, some other modern church music as well as non conformist type hymns and Anglican as well as some catholic hymns and Gregorian chant / plainsong. I imagine I may have been more open to tridentine were it not that it's re-introduction, like it's invention post reformation, is the RC Churches erroneous belief in it's own sense of entitlement rather than engaging with Holy Spirits presence within the reformation and again today, with the laudable elements of secularism such as human rights and equality. I'm sure I might have found it beautiful and prayerful, but now I just view it as the velvet gloved heavy handed oppressive club, enjoying their gin parties paid for by the poor, sometimes very poor ordinary folks. If I had less integrity, I would wish to go back in time and tell my younger self to just stick with it, because it seems as long as you don't break the thirteenth commandment, or perhaps today, even if you do, ie "Thou Shalt Not Get Caught!" no problem, so long as you back up the embroidery and lace ad orientam, with their closed off sanctuaries and high pulpits! Three good meals a day, a better stocked drinks cabinet, larder and store room than I've ever had since, heating and all in a beautiful environment, that was my "Austere" religious life! I can tell you, I know something of austerity since and I know others that know more, a lot more than some priests and religious may ever know! Because if the coffers do contract, they'll sell off their Churches and the faithful remnant will have to travel further, rather than end the craic!

      Sorry Big Hank, turned into a rant! Maybe you agree with all or some ..or none! Apologies to all those decent workers labouring in The Lord's Vineyard and thank you for all that you do! God Bless you and everyone! :-)

      Delete
  17. He'll have his work cut out for him with Maynooth... and, of course, he will fail like his predecessor. Next stop Baku, Azerbaijan for Jude.

    ReplyDelete