CNA Staff, Jan 16, 2021 / 04:28 pm (CNA).- Catholic bishops have welcomed an Irish government report on 20th century homes for unmarried mothers and babies run by local governments and often operated by religious orders. They have apologized for the harsh treatment of unmarried mothers and their children, calling this a betrayal of Christ.
“Although it may be distressing, it is important that all of us spend time in the coming days reflecting on this report which touches on the personal story and experience of many families in Ireland,” Archbishop Eamon Martin of Armagh said Jan. 12.
“The commission’s report helps to further open to the light what was for many years a hidden part of our shared history and it exposes the culture of isolation, secrecy and social ostracizing which faced ‘unmarried mothers’ and their children in this country.”
He urged continued outreach to those whose personal testimony was central to the report.
“We owe it to them to take time to study and reflect on the findings and recommendations of the Report, and commit to doing what we can to help and support them,” he said. “We must identify, accept and respond to the broader issues which the report raises about our past, present and future.”
The Irish Commission of Investigation into Mother and Baby Homes released its report Jan. 12. The six-year inquiry concerned 14 “mother and baby” homes and four “county homes” in the time period of 1922 to 1998. The report examines individual homes and individual witness testimonies as well as providing historical context for the actions of the women, their babies’ fathers, their families, government officials, and religious leaders involved.
“Women who gave birth outside of marriage were subject to particularly harsh treatment. Responsibility for that harsh treatment rests mainly with the fathers of their children and their own immediate families,” said the report. “It was supported by, contributed to, and condoned by, the institutions of the State and the Churches.”
“However, it must be acknowledged that the institutions under investigation provided a refuge – a harsh refuge in some cases – when the families provided no refuge at all,” it added.
About 56,000 women and girls, as young as 12 or in their forties, were sent to these institutions. The county homes were government-run and -operated, while the mother and baby homes were generally run with government support by Catholic religious religious orders, technically under the authority of their local bishop.
About 57,000 babies were born in the homes over this 76-year period. There was a significant mortality rate, with 15 percent of babies dying before they left the homes. The high mortality rate was known to authorities and recorded, but there was no outcry and little effort to address these problems. The commission report said the high infant mortality rate was the institutions’ most “disquieting feature.” Before 1960, the institutions appeared to have “significantly reduced” survival prospects.
Some county homes had “appalling physical conditions,” as did the homes at Tuam, in County Galway, and Kilrush, in County Clare. Other homes were “considerably better.”
While poor living conditions were common in Ireland, poor sanitary conditions in the group homes had “much more serious consequences.” There was oversight and inspection reports were critical of conditions, but maximum capacity figures were not set for mother and baby homes until the 1940s. These figures were not enforced, because they would have massively reduced the homes’ capacity.
Archbishop Martin welcomed the report, saying, “as a Church leader today, I accept that the Church was clearly part of that culture in which people were frequently stigmatized, judged and rejected.” He “unreservedly apologized” to the survivors and all impacted for the enduring hurt and emotional distress.
“As Church, State and wider society we must ensure together that, in the Ireland of today, all children and their mothers feel wanted, welcomed and loved,” Archbishop Martin said. We must also continue to ask ourselves where people today might feel similarly rejected, abandoned, forgotten or pushed to the margins.”
“Mindful of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which calls us to protect life and dignity and to treat everyone – especially little children and all who are vulnerable – with love, compassion and mercy, I believe the Church must continue to acknowledge before the Lord and before others its part in sustaining what the Report describes as a ‘harsh … cold and uncaring atmosphere’,” Martin said.
While some 200 women who gave birth died while living at mother and baby homes, the report indicated that they likely received better maternal care than most Irish women through the 1960s or 1970s, as most gave birth at home with the aid of a midwife or even an untrained aid. Many Irish homes lacked running water. At the same time, county hospitals discriminated against unmarried women and would not admit them to maternity wards until the 1960s.
The report attributed the end of the homes to massive improvements in living conditions, changes in religious and moral attitudes, as well as gradual improvements like free post-primary education, the establishment of legal adoption in 1953, and an allowance for unmarried mothers in 1973.
Providing historical context, the report said that such homes were not particular to Ireland, at the same time the proportion of unmarried mothers admitted to these homes in the 20th century was “probably the highest in the world.” The group home system was believed to reduce the women’s risk of entering prostitution or committing infanticide. The system also purported to advance their moral reform.
“Some pregnancies were the result of rape; some women had mental health problems, some had an intellectual disability. However, the majority were indistinguishable from most Irish women of their time,” said the report.
In the first decades of the time period concerned, most women admitted to the institutions were domestic servants, farm workers, or unpaid domestic workers in their family homes. In later decades, women were clerical workers, civil servants, professionals, and schoolgirls or post-secondary students.
Many of these pregnant women had failed to secure support from their families or the fathers of the babies and were destitute. Some women entered the homes to prevent family and neighbors from learning they were pregnant. Some were forcibly brought to the homes by family members. There was no evidence that pregnancies among under-age women were routinely reported to police. There is no evidence Church or state officials forced them to enter, but most women “had no alternative,” the report said.
Most were financially supported in the institutions by the local government health authority. Many women were cut off from the world and assigned a “house name.”
Both Irish men and women were more likely to be dependent on their parents into their early twenties. Families tended to have many children and would be less able to support an unmarried daughter’s baby. An out-of-wedlock birth could destroy marriage prospects for both the woman and her siblings.
Irish men were also reluctant to marry, especially to marry young. The commission said it is possible that fewer men married their pregnant girlfriend than they did in other countries. Land inheritance customs and economic necessity meant land passed only to one son.
It was often impossible for pregnant women to prove paternity claims, and compared to other countries a low proportion of Irish men acknowledged paternity or provided financial support. Before 1950, many fathers were themselves financially imperiled, working low-wage jobs or unpaid jobs for family farms and businesses.
Most children born in the institutions were too young to remember, but some stayed after their mothers left through age seven. Legal adoption, which the report called a “vastly better outcome,” was not available until 1953, with farming communities still proving less likely to adopt. Children often ended up in industrial schools or were boarded out.
While the Catholic hierarchy evidently had no role in the day-to-day operation of mother and baby homes, religious congregations who opened such homes required the local bishop’s permission. Local authorities often deferred to the views of these religious orders or to the views of the local bishop.
“The Catholic church did not invent Irish attitudes to prudent marriages or family respectability; however, it reinforced them through church teachings that emphasized the importance of pre-marital purity and the sexual dangers associated with dance halls, immodest dress, mixed bathing and other sources of ‘temptation’,” said the report.
There is no evidence the religious orders running these homes made a profit, said the report, which added: “At various times, it is clear that they struggled to make ends meet.”
The report suggested that the mortality rate was higher than the Irish norm either because of the high risk of infection, or because the children born in mother and baby homes came from less privileged backgrounds than other women who gave birth out-of-wedlock but had healthier pregnancies and healthier babies. Women who gave birth in the homes had more stressful lives and worse pre-natal care and nutrition. There was a failure to implement appropriate hygiene standards at the homes and to educate mothers about hygiene. Almost all the homes lacked the staff needed to perform such education.
Infant mortality rates at the homes peaked in the 1940s, a time of economic difficulty due in significant part to the Second World War.
Archbishop Dermot Farrell of Dublin welcomed the report’s publication, saying such reports “bring to light the profound injustices perpetrated against the vulnerable in our society over a long period of time – against women and children whose lives were regarded as less important than the lives of others.”
“The silence which surrounded this shameful time in the history of our land had long needed to be shattered,” he said. “The pain of those who were hidden away must be heard; those once largely without a voice now can speak clearly to our world, and we need to listen, even when what we hear pierces to the heart.”
“A genuine response is required: ours – as a Church and a society – can only be a full apology, without any reservation. There should never have been a time for avoidance and facile solutions,” he said. “This country, the Church, our communities and families are better places when the light of truth and healing are welcomed. May the Lord’s compassion be the touchstone of our response. May the light of Christ bring healing to all.”
Bishop Tom Deenihan of Meath also apologized, saying: “While a lack of resources and an intense social poverty go some way towards contextualizing the period of this report, the lack of kindness and compassion, as identified by the commission, is also clear.”
Residents and children born in these institutions suffered from “unacceptable conditions” and inadequate assistance, and they have been “unfairly burdened with an unwarranted but enduring sense of shame,” he said.
The long-closed Tuam Children’s Home in County Galway became notorious after the discovery of an unmarked mass grave for children. Some 2,219 women and 3,251 children had been at the home, and 978 children died—80 percent before their first birthday.
The home was operated by the Bon Secours Sisters in from 1925 to 1961. In addition to unmarried mothers and their babies, it also accepted children of destitute and homeless families as well as children with special needs.
It is likely that many children who died are buried in the memorial gardens, but while there are records of their deaths there is no record of their burial places.
The Bon Secours sisters offered “profound apologies.” They said that the children who died at the home were buried in a “disrespectful and unacceptable way,” the Irish Times reports.
Sister Eileen O’Connor, the local superior of the Bon Secour Sisters, said Jan. 12 that the report “presents a history of our country in which many women and children were rejected, silenced and excluded; in which they were subjected to hardship; and in which their inherent human dignity was disrespected, in life and in death. Our Sisters of Bon Secours were part of this sorrowful history.”
“We failed to respect the inherent dignity of the women and children who came to the home. We failed to offer them the compassion that they so badly needed. We were part of the system in which they suffered hardship, loneliness and terrible hurt,” O’Connor said. “We acknowledge in particular that infants and children who died at the home were buried in a disrespectful and unacceptable way. For all that, we are deeply sorry.”
Archbishop Michael Neary of Tuam also welcomed the report and asked forgiveness for “the abject failure of the Church for the pain and suffering visited on those women and their children.”
“The Church of Jesus Christ was intended to bring hope and healing, yet it brought harm and hurt for many of these women and children,” he said. “Many were left broken, betrayed and disillusioned. For them, and all of us, these revelations seriously tarnished the image of the Church.”
The Galway County Council owned the Tuam home and was responsible for the residents, and the sisters operated it. The diocese had no administrative role. However, Neary emphasized, the diocese had a pastoral role, “in that the priests of Tuam parish served as chaplains.”
“Today, how can we even begin to comprehend the raw pain and psychological damage of family separation and its devastating consequences on loving mothers and on the emotional development of their children?” he asked. “Must we ask as to the whereabouts of the fathers? Had the Church been more forthright in acknowledging the responsibility of the men who fathered these children, the outcome for many young mothers and their children would have been very different indeed.”
The diocesan archives on the home have been shared with the commission, but the archive does not have information on the living conditions. Neary lamented the absence of burial location records, saying the burials have “understandably, caused the most outrage.” He welcomed any progress in uncovering the full truth.
Dublin’s Regina Coeli hostel, founded by the Legion of Mary, appeared to show some ability to break with the trends of Irish society. The full report’s 21st chapter says that the hostel was “the only institution that assisted unmarried mothers to keep their infant” before the 1970s, the Iona Institute reports.
“Although the mothers who kept their babies were a minority until the 1970s, the proportion was undoubtedly much higher than for any other institution catering for unmarried mothers”
Venerable Frank Duff, the layman founder of the Legion of Mary, wrote a 1950 memorandum to the Department of Health about encouraging women to keep their children. Duff opposed committing children to Ireland’s industrial schools, which have also been the target of historical inquiry for poor conditions and abuse of their residents.
The hostel received no regular state support. At the same time, babies of women at the hostel suffered a high mortality rate, which peaked in the 1940s, and other reports have questioned the conditions there.
[…]
Um, I have a question, Jorge.
What about Rupnik?
Why stop there?
The language of northern Belgium is Flemish (Vlaams). As in Vlaams Belang and Nieuw Vlaams Alliantie (N-VA), two of the political parties.
Little Sisters of the Poor are humbly serving the last, the least, and the lost. May the selfless servers and those served be blessed with joy and happiness.
Why should the Church be ashamed when Bergoglio is not ashamed? Here is the list of the sexual abusers he has and is protecting:https://opentabernacle.wordpress.com/2017/03/03/list-of-sexual-predators-protected-by-pope-francis-grows-and-grows/
Why not praise him for the flack he is taking by standing firm on abortion, no women priests, not accepting homosexuality and trans genderism ? Even the secular media is covering this. Give the man credit when credit is due! By the way he should be addressed as Pope Francis.
Probably because the article is about the Pope’s speech saying the Church should be ashamed of clerical abuse, not about everything he’s ever done.
Touché Amanda.
Bergoglio has continuously in word and deed promoted homosexuality and transgenderism, the heretical agenda of his Synod on women priests, and the raft of pro-abortion “experts” he has appointed just last week to his ruined Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith. These are all matters of public record for the past 11 years. If Bergoglio acted and spoke as pope, he could be addressed as pope, but he does not. In fact, serious doubts must be entertained of whether he is pope and not an apostate and heretical anti-pope. Again, these are issues that have been routinely addressed on the public record for the past 11 years.
James Connor: He has never been “firm” on any of those matters. Check again. Early in his pontificate, he even condemned being “obsessed” over abortion, and he has knowingly been praising the work of some of the world’s most notorious abortionists ever since under the pretest of environmentalism. He restructured the Pontifical Academy for Life from a pro-life think tank to an abortion advocacy cesspool. An all-male priesthood was solved definitively by JPII, yet Francis, the politician, keeps finding cynical ways to revive it. And he clearly supports the legitimization of homosexuality.
From no other than Bridget Bardot today —
On Bergoglio: “I have no admiration whatsoever for what Pope Francis says and does. I wrote to the Pope twice, happy to know that he was taking the name of Francis and convinced that he would do something for animals. I never received a reply.”
https://gloria.tv/post/iQwEUxRhkeDk4Zs6txEp1Ds3Z
I too, James, am saddened because those who attack Pope Francis are, like me, sinners and ingrates.
I would only like to add and remember, regarding abortion and euthanasia—topics that are very close to my heart, as they represent the foremost and principal abuses of the apostate Western ‘civilization,’ once Christian and now neo-pagan (let it not be said, as was reproached to the Pope in Belgium for paying homage to King Baldwin, that we have returned to the Middle Ages—we are the ones who change, becoming worse, we have become barbaric, but God and His holy law do not change!)—that King Philippe, precisely ten years ago, abdicated.
Not formally from his power, but essentially from his role. A role that, particularly as a Catholic, required him to serve all his subjects, especially the least among them, in obedience to the famous Gospel paradox which demands that the greatest make themselves small and place themselves at the service of the most defenseless. And who are the most defenseless if not children?
Yet Philippe, forgetful of his *munus* and the responsibilities it entails, signed into law the bill extending euthanasia to minors without any age limit, a law approved by Parliament on February 13, 2014.
The 210,000 signatures collected from every corner of the world and addressed to him, urging him to deny his assent and shield the children of his people with his crown, were in vain. Two hundred and ten thousand signatures to stop a single one. These signatures were gathered not because there was a true belief that without the monarch’s approval, the law would not pass, but because Philippe’s ‘No’ would have embodied the ‘No’ of hundreds of thousands of citizens who do not identify with a Belgium that has taken on the guise of Herod. That ‘No’ would have signified that the word of one man, precisely because he is King, holds far greater weight than parliamentary majorities and political calculations.
None of those issues are relevant to the article. Francis has actively, intentionally, and repeatedly failed to properly discipline and laicize members of the church hierarchy who are guilty of sexual abuse and assault. His behavior is inexcusable and totally unacceptable. I’ll start referring to him as pope when he starts acting like one.
Athanasius, your comment inspired me to revisit the words of Saint Catherine of Siena, who played a pivotal role in the history of the Church. She was instrumental in bringing Pope Gregory XI back to Rome from Avignon. Later, she was summoned by Pope Urban VI to address the cardinals and remained in Rome as his advisor. The challenges faced by the Popes and the Church during Saint Catherine’s time may not mirror our own, but they were nonetheless significant, causing widespread disaffection, especially towards Urban VI. In fact, even those who remained loyal to the Pope and opposed the Antipope were plotting his assassination, blaming him for the Church’s woes. Catherine suffered deeply from this and was tormented by the thought of what she called a potential “parricide.” She not only prayed but asked the Lord to let her bear all the suffering so that the Church might be spared. And the Lord listened to her.
I offer this context because we must always look at the Pope with the eyes of faith. With that very same vision of faith, Saint Catherine wrote: “I urge and desire that you love Christ on earth” (Letter 177, to Cardinal Pietro of Porto). She also requested that her spiritual children offer “a special daily prayer for the Holy Church and for the Pope” (Letter 324, to Stefano Maconi, the future founder of the Certosa of Pavia).
Here is one of Saint Catherine’s prayers for the Pope. It can be recited daily as a tangible expression of our love for the Church, offering it just a minute of our time:
“O eternal God and sweetest charity, I pray and beg your most holy clemency that you purify your vicar, so that his heart may burn with holy desire to recover the lost members of the holy Church. And if his negligence displeases you, O eternal love, punish my body for it, which I offer and return to you, so that you may afflict and destroy it with your scourges, if it pleases you so. I pray that he always does your will, does not heed the counsel of the flesh, and does not cower in the face of any adversity, for truly all things fall away except you, the highest God. Therefore, O eternal mercy, make your vicar a devourer of the food of souls, burning with holy desire for your honor, and uniting himself only with you, because you are supreme and eternal goodness, purify our infirmities for your sake, and restore your bride with his salutary counsel and virtuous deeds. Amen.”
In a letter to Bernabò Visconti, Lord of Milan, after reminding him that “the sweet Word, Son of God, has placed His blood in the body of the holy Church and wills that it be administered by the hands of His vicar,” she wrote: “Therefore, it is foolish for anyone to turn away and act against this vicar who holds the keys to the blood of Christ crucified. Even if he were a demon incarnate, I must not raise my head against him but always humble myself, asking for mercy through the blood, for there is no other way to obtain it, nor can you share in the fruit of the blood in any other way. I implore you, for the love of Christ crucified, not to act against your head” (Letter 28).
As you may have noticed, Athanasius, I haven’t engaged directly with the content of the debate. But I hope I have helped you love the Pope, who remains the Vicar of Christ, and encouraged you to pray for both him and the Church. The Lord will bless you abundantly.
To the staff of the CNA, and CWR readers:
Here is a photo of the Pontiff Francis on the fateful night after his election:
https://www.tldm.org/news41/francis-danneels.jpg
The man at the right of the photo is Cardinal Godfreed Daneels (who as the article admits, was the “protector” of his friend the nephew-raping-pederast-pedophile Bishop Roger Vangelhue), and who (in league with his fellow sociopath Cardinal Theodore McCarrick) helped engineer the campaign to elect Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio to the papacy.
And consistent with the Pontiff Francis’ continuing very deep personal esteem and eternal protection of his friend the sociopath sex abuser Rupnik, following upon similar protections and favors the Pontiff Francis has doled out to other sociopath sex abusers like his Argentinian friend bishop Zanchetta, etc, etc, we should all keep in mind that in his prior role as Archbishop of Buenos Aries and head if the Argentine Bishops Conference, then-Cardinal Bergoglio orchestrated a multi-million dollar secret legal campaign to defend his friend “Rev.” Julio Grassi, the most notorious sex abuser in Argentina, who was tried and convicted of raping orphans in his “orphanage charity organization.”
CNA might consider the option of facing reality of what it means that The Pontiff Francis and the late Cardinal Danneels and the former Cardinal McCarrick are of one mind.
I submit to CNA and all that their “one mind” is NOT THE MIND OF CHRIST.
Thank you Paul and Chris for this information and the devastating links. The Church is being attacked from the inside it seems. May God help the Church. I had heard of this before but had attributed it to de enemies of the Church. Then after checking your links I went and found other links:
ps://www.yahoo.com › news › swiss-guards-39-gay-mafia-104500440–politics.html
The Swiss Guards’ Gay Mafia – Yahoo
January 24, 2014. The Swiss Guards’ Gay Mafia. For more than a year now, there has been ample talk around Rome about a powerful gay lobby at work inside the Vatican. When Pope Benedict XVI ..
Yes, Michel Foucault, the patron saint of post-modernism and liberated sex (he had his own boy) would have been very proud of Danneels.
A possible cover-up by the Belgian Catholic hierarchy of a vast scandal of sex abuse of minors by priests and bishops is likely to be less shocking to a group of parents who spent years trying, with no success, to have a graphically sexually explicit “catechism” textbook withdrawn from Catholic schools.
On June 24, the very day police were raiding the offices of the Archdiocese of Brussels and the home of Cardinal Godfreed Danneels, an article appeared in the Brussels Journal detailing the cardinal’s opposition to efforts to stop the catechism that had been written and approved by Belgian Catholic authorities.
Alexandra Colen, a Catholic member of the Belgian parliament, wrote that because of this “perverted little catechism,” “Hundreds of children who were not raped physically were molested spiritually during the catechism lessons.”
They really were ahead of their times when you think about the content of books now found in school libraries.
Many are so blinded by the resentment they harbor against the Church that they believe it capable of committing the gravest monstrosities imaginable. The concept they have formed of the Church is that it is a criminal organization.
However, this is not the first time in history that some have thought this way. Others before have said, from different perspectives, that the Pope and the ecclesiastical hierarchy are inventions of the Antichrist.
But we need to bring the issue to its core.
The behavior of priests (or rather, we should say: of some priests) is not the object of my faith. The object of our faith is Jesus Christ, God made man, who for each of us is ‘the way, the truth, and the life’ (John 14:6).
Of course, hearing criticism of the Church always causes sorrow, because it is as if we were hearing our mother being criticized: it is the Church, in fact, that gave birth to our faith, and it is in the Church that we nurture our faith. Our mothers eventually leave us. And yet, once we are adults, we can manage on our own.
But this is not the case with the Church. We absolutely need it always, until the very end, because it is through the Church that we encounter Christ. We meet Him primarily in the sacraments.
When I go to confession, it is Christ I want to meet. I am interested in His forgiveness. I care about His grace.
When I am at Mass, it is Christ’s sacrifice that I seek.
His blood is my only treasure, that blood which has a voice more eloquent than that of Abel (Hebrews 12:24). I seek Him for myself, for the Church, for all humanity, even for those who are scandalized by the behavior of some men within the Church.
As you see, Chris, I am not trying to contrast the immense good that exists in the Church with the evil committed by some of its ministers.
Because the object of our faith is Christ. It is Him we follow.
Certainly, the witness of the Church is important. Because through its life and its word, it proclaims Christ. And yet, not even the Church—even if it were composed solely of saints—is our God.
Christ, and Christ alone, is ‘our great God and Savior’ (Titus 2:13).
Only Christ is ‘He who is over all, God blessed forever’ (Romans 9:5).
In the nascent Church, Jesus also co-opted Judas. He knew well that Judas would betray Him and that his behavior would cast a shadow over the Twelve.
Why did He do this?
St. Augustine says that Jesus wanted to use even Judas. He tolerated being betrayed by him to redeem us.
Well, even today, Christ uses those who do harm within the Church to spur others to redouble their zeal.
But even without resorting to Judas, not even the Twelve could boast of their faithfulness.
With this in mind, the Church is called to remain humble, with its head bowed, to play the low notes, as the humble—let me emphasize that word—Francis does continuously.
Despite its infinite merits, the Church must not glory in itself.
Its mission is not to proclaim itself, but Christ.
We must be certain that the Lord did not make a mistake in presenting Himself to the world with such a fragile face as that of the Church.
It must be clear to everyone that its preaching is so marvelous, and its action so transformative, not because of the skill of its men but because of the virtue of Christ that is in it.
Just as St. Paul once said: ‘But we have this treasure in jars of clay, to show that this all-surpassing power is from God and not from us’ (2 Corinthians 4:7).
Seeing the Church suffer from all these scandals, amplified by the social media, instead of discouraging us, reminds us that the object of our proclamation and our faith is our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.”
I understand your passion, Paolo, but, what are we to say and do when corruption exists? Nothing. Maybe turning over the tables in the temple is also following Jesus. The thing is sexual abuse by (a few) clergy does, has and is causing people to give up, and even more so when those people go to the Church for help and get rejected. Does not the reality of around 50% of clergy not believing that chastity is integral to their celibacy not bother you? Yes, I know you will question that figure: based on research and experience, I don’t doubt it for a minute anymore. The scandals and depressed morale aren’t due to us highlighting the existence (ever-present- yes) of evil within the church and even ourselves, it’s because of those evils themselves. So, don’t shoot the messenger, man, turn over some of the tables in the temple, while maintaining your deep faith. Maybe doing so is part of the faith. But, you’re the better man: I’ve given up (because of abuse but more so because of my Bishop’s response to me and others I know), so, yeah, I suppose you can, therefore, reject everything I say. We all have points to make, though and together maybe we come closer to reality.
Paolo. Read this response second. Just after I read your comment and replied to it, I received an email from a woman I have come to know who has been deeply harmed by a forced adoption within the RC Church. He husband was also a victim of child sexual abuse. Both after trying to deal with the fallout through the Church have decided to leave, the husband even going so far as to be officially ‘de-baptised’. Here is a short section from her email:
“Ironic is it not? That the very people who profess to be “so-called Christians” but rather acted very non-Christian and became like judge and jury by punishing and condemning innocent children and adults (like myself, husband’s name redacted, and thousands of others) were the ones who turned me against the churches and Christianity in general”.
“I believe, however, that I am a spiritual being within a human physical body (for now). My spirituality resides more in nature. In a universal. divine. all-knowing presence”.
So, unless Francis and his Bishops and religious OPrder leaders can/will actually do something for the many hundreds of thousands of people like this couple (and others I am assisting – and encouraging to keep their faith), as well as fully enact a truly zero-tolerance, nothing will ‘get better’ for the Church nor for the society it could and should be really being a light.
Well, that’s how I see it for now. Maybe I haven’t given up, but at present I also just can’t be part of the Body, and I do miss it.
“Many are so blinded by the resentment they harbor against the Church that they believe it capable of committing the gravest monstrosities imaginable. The concept they have formed of the Church is that it is a criminal organization.”
People have good cause, and plenty of evidence, to support these beliefs. Given Francis’ repeated refusal to properly and decisively address this and hold people accountable, it’s perfectly understandable that the church’s reputation has been tarnished. People aren’t stupid.
I continue to have an objection to the Bishop of Rome fashioning himself as a Head of State and meeting with his counterparts like the King and Queen of Belgium.
This globetrotting activity of the modern day papacy began with Paul VI and went on steroids during Pope John Paul’s tenure. There was less of it under Benedict. We live in an age of superstars, stadiums filled with screaming fans and a hypercommercialism of just about everything which now includes the person of the Bishop of Rome. If the Church were to be truly collegial, it would leave shepherding to the the bishop of each diocese.
I would make this applicable to WYDs and all the globetrotting and expense that yhose events involve. Wouldn’t it make sense to have Diocesan Youth Days when bishops meet with the youth of their individual dioceses, have Mass and conferences for youth to attend and then do a Billy Graham-style altar call for all the young willing to engage in missions of evangelizelization? I think the days of Church-as-Rock-Concert and globetrotting Popes should end.
I’m not a fan of altar calls in the Catholic Church (I mean, besides the entire Mass). I’m not sure about the globetrotting. Popes have been involved in diplomacy since approximately the time of Constantine. For some at least it was probably the right call.
But it would be nice for bishops to be more visible in their dioceses. I suspect most people only see him at their Confirmation, and some don’t even see him then. There are some large dioceses in the US, that take a day (or more) to drive across. Just to have the bishop come to a few regional parishes in a year (so that most people could make it without needing to pay for a hotel), say Mass, and give a conference or two, would probably make a world of difference in the relationship between bishop and people, without requiring him to visit each parish every year.
The appropriate position is for The Church to be ashamed of and shun the Pontiff Francis for his lifelong allegiance to clerical and episcopal sex abusers and sex abuse coverup hierarchs.
The key word in the headline is indeed,’should’. But he/they have an out – ‘the church is both holy and sinful’, the same ‘excuse so many abusers of children AND adults use, like the Salesian who was interrupted while raping a boy and who responded; “Well, God made me this way”. Or like the abusers who sexually harm then go to confession, often to other clerical sex abusers, as ex-Fr Kevin Lee explained in a video shortly before he ‘died’ see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHVhYXLNvlw . No, Francis, words are cheap and will only have value when you deal seriously with the offenders you already know about, such as Punik, for one.
Sorry, typo – not Punik…Rupnik, but I suspect most would know who I meant. By the way, if anyone would like a copy of Kevin Lee’s book, “Unholy Silence: Covering up the sins of the fathers”, I’m pretty sure you can’t get it anymore since his death but I am happy to send anyone a copy.
Sorry, typo – not Punik…Rupnik, but I suspect most would know who I meant. By the way, if anyone would like a copy of Kevin Lee’s book, “Unholy Silence: Covering up the sins of the fathers”, I’m pretty sure you can’t get it anymore since his death but I am happy to send anyone a copy. Email me.
I wish there was an edit button here. I meant to include an article about Foucault, who it wouldn’t be beyond reasonable doubt, to think that Danneels and much of the modern Catholic Church would uphold as a guru of some sort: Read it and weep: https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2021/4/16/reckoning-with-foucaults-sexual-abuse-of-boys-in-tunisia. Of course many scholars try to explain this away – they have to, he is one of the main foundational theorists for current thinking about sex and sexuality. For him to be a ‘true paedophile’ would shake their self-righteous certainties to the ground. Interesting that Foucoult was raised Catholic. So many of our revolutionaries were. One has to ask: was he ‘abused’? There is so, so much more to this issue, it’s not just about a mere sin of the flesh. For example, see http://www.awrsipe.com/click_and_learn/2008-10-preliminary_considerations.html.
Ive heard the rumors about Foucault but is there actually evidence?
Thank you.
Hmmm….
National Catholic Register had this: https://www.ncregister.com/news/abuse-commission-of-church-in-germany-defends-citing-michel-foucault
NCR’s article explained that Germany’s RCC abuse Commission cited Foucault (I don’t know in what way), in a report in January 2021. At the end of March 2021, an American writer alleged Foucault’ abuse of minors. Foucault died in 1984.
This is too big a can of worms for me to find any clarity in it—-the report by Gremany’s abuse commission was intended for the Synod. The darkness increases by the day!
Unknown to me until today in searching for Foucault and RCC, this site intrigued me: https://catholiccritique.com/2024/09/08/from-creation-and-family-to-the-petri-dish/
Thank you so much meiron, I’ll look at those links a little later.
Foucault’s not my hero but I have heard that the evidence for his misdeeds wasn’t clear.
I have a fantasy dream now and again, it comes from the alternative history genre. I imagine the power for good the Church would be if abuse in its ranks didn’t exist since all had taken their calling seriously! What a lovely vision!!!
Sexual abuse of whatever kind isn’t just a «Catholic» matter, although the secularists would have you believe that to be the case.
In a land whose law allows «euthanasia» for young children the shock and horror from Belgium rings like a cracked bell.
The Holy Father deserves praise for actually setting foot in the country.
My dear friend, I thank you sincerely for the warm, honest, and deeply heartfelt tone of your comment. Thank you from the bottom of my heart! Your humility is undoubtedly the result of a special grace.
Just this morning, I too received a “confession” from an elderly person about a tragic case of abuse by a laywoman, the head of a boarding school, and unfortunately, it wasn’t an isolated case.
I see a bright aspect in your spiritual life (“I haven’t completely given up”), and I am convinced that your prayer is a particularly precious good work.
Even though priests are endowed with a special holiness by virtue of the character imprinted on their souls on the day of their ordination, they are not immune to the temptations of the evil one. When Saint Thomas Aquinas asks why Jesus allowed Himself to be tempted, he replies that He did so “for our instruction: so that no one, no matter how holy, should believe they are secure or immune from temptation. And for this reason, He wanted to be tempted right after baptism: because, as He says to Saint Hilary, ‘the devil launches his attacks especially against the saints, for a victory over them is more coveted'” (In Mt 3).
That’s why the Holy Scriptures tell us: “My child, if you come forward to serve the Lord, prepare yourself for temptation” (Sirach 2:1) (Summa Theologica, III, 41, 1).
Alexis Carrel, a Nobel Prize-winning doctor who converted to Christianity after witnessing a miraculous event at Lourdes, once said that “prayer is the most powerful form of energy we can generate.”
After yet another scandal involving priests—something you document in your comment in such a timely and painful way—may the Lord stir in you the desire to pray for them! It is the Lord who “works in you to will and to act according to His good purpose” (Philippians 2:13).
By responding to this call, it is as if you are opening the door to the Lord, who then enters your life once again. Saint Thérèse of the Child Jesus was right when she said that one well-received grace is followed by many others.
There are many types of temptations that priests face. I will mention just one: the danger of becoming desensitized to what they do. Priests, accustomed to being in church and moving around the altar, can sometimes lose the sense of the greatness of their mission.
I am part of a Padre Pio prayer group, to whom I am devoted, and whose feast day we celebrated on September 23. Here are some of the instructions Padre Pio gave to one of his spiritual daughters: “Enter the church in silence and with great respect, considering yourself unworthy to appear before the Majesty of the Lord.”
Priests enter the church continuously for many reasons. The risk is that they may not even think about standing in the presence of the Majesty of the Lord.
Padre Pio also wrote to the same person: “When leaving the church, have a calm and collected demeanor: first, greet Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament, ask Him for forgiveness for the failings committed in His divine presence, and do not leave Him until you have asked for His fatherly blessing.”
Entering and exiting continuously, a priest may be tempted to forget the profound significance of those moments both for himself and for the faithful entrusted to him. If a priest lives in this awareness, his life becomes a continuous blessing from the Lord for him and a blessing from him to his people.
In a letter sent to his spiritual director, Padre Pio wrote: “Pietrelcina, April 7, 1913. My dearest father, on Friday morning I was still in bed when Jesus appeared to me. He was all battered and disfigured. He showed me a great multitude of regular and secular priests, among whom were several ecclesiastical dignitaries. Some were celebrating, some were vesting, and some were unvesting from their sacred garments. The sight of Jesus in such agony caused me great sorrow, and I wanted to ask Him why He was suffering so much. I received no answer. Instead, His gaze turned toward those priests; but shortly afterward, almost horrified and as if tired of looking, He withdrew His gaze. When He raised His eyes back to me, with great horror, I noticed two tears running down His cheeks. He turned away from that crowd of priests with an expression of great disgust on His face, and shouted: ‘Butchers!’
And then, turning to me, He said: ‘My son, do not think that My agony lasted for three hours, no; I shall be in agony until the end of the world because of the souls I have benefitted most, and they repay me with ingratitude. During the time of My agony, My son, one must not sleep. My soul seeks some consolation from human pity, but alas, I am left alone under the weight of indifference. The ingratitude and slumber of My ministers make My agony even heavier. Oh, how poorly they respond to My love! What afflicts Me most is that they add their disdain and disbelief to their indifference. Many times I was ready to strike them down, but I was held back by the angels and by the souls who love Me. Write to your spiritual father and tell him what you have seen and heard from Me this morning. Ask him to show your letter to the Provincial Father.’”
This vision of Padre Pio is truly dramatic and gives much to reflect on. Let us continue—or begin—to pray fervently for priests so that they may be fully aware of their vocation and of the holy realities they are ministers of.
In proportion to our prayers, the Lord will bless us more and more. I thank you deeply because I know you will include me—a poor sinner—in your prayers. I wish you all the best!
Thank you Paolo. I appreciate your response.