Jul 212009
 

The Dublin Diocese Commission report is ready and when published it will cause an earthquake. It will expose the collusion, callousness, self-interest and downright sleaziness of the Catholic bishops in Ireland. It will expose their lack of moral authority and their unsuitability to hold any position of power, especially when that power concerns defenceless children. It will reveal their conscious protection of clerical rapists and their deliberate concealment of grave crimes in order to protect their own positions and the institution they serve.

They couldn’t believe it when Diarmuid Martin decided to cooperate with the investigation.

They were speechless.

Old whey-faced creeping-jesus Desmond Connell was so appalled that he took Archbishop Martin to court in an attempt to prevent him from handing over confidential papers containing information about child abuse in the diocese.

Can you imagine his horror? Can you imagine his bafflement?

Can you imagine how he felt at the thought that lay people – the unanointed – would dare to question his princely, haughty, unfeeling, soulless, theoretical insipid, arrogant wisdom? This man, and all his bishop colleagues have been subject to a shared delusion, unchallenged for decades, that they have any authority whatever in this country. And successive governments have given them every reason to believe that they hold temporal sway over our fragile democracy.

After all, didn’t deValera give old John Charles McQuaid a veto over what went into the Constitution and what did not? And isn’t it ironic that McQuaid is one of the 19 bishops investigated in the report?

Archbishop Diarmuid Martin was put in place to manage a disaster created by his predecessors. He’s a pragmatist, unlike his colleagues who are, by and large, a bunch of pompous fools. A bunch of pompous, self-interested, unprincipled fools who just happen to control a large part of our education and health services.

UPDATE

It’s now the end of November and we still haven’t seen the report.

Lumps of it have been censored to avoid prejudicing court proceedings against a priest and his brother. Even more worryingly, publication of Chapter 20 has been restricted since a prosecution was initiated against another priest.  Chapter 20 contains severe criticism of an Garda Síochána, an organisation that gave the Catholic church a special status above the law and failed to prosecute any of their child-abusing priests.   This prosecution, which had the effect of silencing criticism of the Gardai, was only initiated in recent weeks, raising suspicions that elements of the police force don’t want the report published.

_______________

Also on Bock

Defending the indefensible

Bishops begin to crack

PR Guidance for bishops

Magee steps down

Brady stands by Magee

Bishops and education system

They just don’t get it

Seán (can I call you that?)

  8 Responses to “Dublin Diocese Commission Abuse Report”

Comments (8)
  1.  

    The Constitution is a Catholic document with Republican tweaks, rather that the Republican document with Catholic control. The basis was the pre-war Polish constitution. The point, DeV had the veto. A small point I grant you, but one which was of use later.
    Now to the report, what went on in Dublin will be a very thin edge of a very wide wedge.

  2.  

    Didn’t Dev have the Irish Constitution ratified by the Pope himself, circa 1937?

  3.  

    Not exactly, what DeV did was to sent the text and each change out via the wire to Archbishop Mannix of Melbourne. Neatly killing two birds by scuttling the ultra right Polish document being pushed here with the leftish republicanish stance from Mannix. The second bird was that it was transmitted over the wire, mostly through British territory. Whitehall knew before Mannix did what was in the communications. And via Mannix could let Dublin know if any area was repugnant. The constitution revoked the Treaty establishing the Free State.

  4.  

    When it’s published? Sadly, that’s an if, not a when – Ahern’s already sent it to the AG looking for a reason not to publish it…

  5.  

    I don’t think that’s quite correct. There was always a provision to decide if some chapters would be omitted pending the trial of named individuals. The report will be published, though some parts might be left out until the trials are finished.

  6.  

    you’re strangely optimistic there bock.

    You seem to think Dermot Ahern isn’t a complete cockknocker.
    Oops…forgot to say great post! Looking forward to your next one.

  7.  

    No. I still think he’s a complete knob-head, but I think he has to publish the report except for any part that might prejudice a trial.

  8.  

    Whats the difference between acne and a Catholic Priest?
    Acne will usually not come on a kid’s face until around 13 or 14 years of age.

    (i’ll get me coat….)

Leave a Reply