Sunday, 13 August 2017

CATHOLIC WOMEN DEACONS

THE HISTORY OF WOMEN DEACONS

FROM: CATHOLICWOMENDEACONS.ORG

WOMEN DEACONS IN SCRIPTURE




An Icon of Phoebe, the deacon, named in Romans 16.

Romans 16

In the first two verses of Romans 16, Paul writes:  I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon (diakonos) of the church in Cenchreae.  I ask you to receive her in the Lord in a way worthy of his people and to give her any help she may need from you, for she has been the benefactor [prostatis] of many people, including me. In the 1st century the use of the masculine singular title diakonos for a female leader does not have the specificity of meaning that it acquired in later centuries.  Therefore it can be translated as either minister or deacon, but not deaconess, since this title did not emerge until later.  In the first century, the title diakonos is thought to connote an official leadership function such as minister, attendant, or envoy. The latter is the likely meaning in Romans since most scholars believe Paul’s recommendation of Phoebe to the Christian community in Rome indicates that she is in fact the carrier of his letter to that community. However, Phoebe’s other title:, “benefactor” or patron (prostatis) may be the more significant since it reveals that she is among the many wealthy women patrons who hosted house churches and financially provided for Paul and other evangelists in the burgeoning early Christian missionary movement.  It is a sad fact that Phoebe’s important leadership in the early church is inexplicably deleted from the Lectionary when the Romans 16 text is read on Week 31 Year 1.  

First Letter to Timothy

 1 Timothy, traditionally attributed to St. Paul, describes qualifications for diakonoi concluding with what is probably a reference to women deacons:  In the same way, [male] deacons (diakonoi) are to be worthy of respect, sincere, not indulging in much wine, and not pursuing dishonest gain. They must keep hold of the deep truths of the faith with a clear conscience. They must first be tested; and then if there is nothing against them, let them serve as deacons. In the same way, the women are to be worthy of respect, not malicious talkers but temperate and trustworthy in everything. (1 Tim 3: 8-11)   While it is possible that the wives of deacons are meant, it is likely that the text refers to women ministering in Timothy’s community. The majority of scholars today believe the letter to Timothy was not written by Paul himself but by an author from the Pauline tradition writing some years later when leadership roles were more developed. Carolyn Osiek believes women deacons and local overseers could also have been included in the episcopoi and diakonoi named in the opening greeting of the letter to the Philippians. (12)

WOMEN DEACONS IN TRADITION




An image of a women -- thought to be a deacon --from the Catacombs of Priscilla.

The evolution of women’s ministerial leadership in early Christianity is a complex phenomenon.  It is well documented that even though our earliest writings (Romans 16) give evidence that women served in apostolic ministerial roles alongside their brothers, over the next three centuries their public ministry was increasingly circumscribed. Wealthy women patrons, often widows, played an indispensable role in the expansion of Christianity throughout the Greco-Roman world. Not surprisingly, there is also evidence that they exercised significant political, liturgical and administrative leadership within the earliest Christian communities, including presiding at Eucharist in their homes, at least during the late first and early second centuries (1).  In some places, including Rome, enrolled widows were accepted as a part of the clergy, though male church leaders soon sought to control their ministry in both the East and the West.  

Early Church Documents

One of the earliest church documents, The Apostolic Tradition, forbade the ordination of widows. This is the first known proscription of women’s ordination and it almost certainly means widows were being ordained, or why the need for a rule?  The Apostolic Tradition is thought to have been written in 3rd century Rome by the presbyter Hippolytus who is also known as the first anti-Pope (2).  It is an irony of history that Hippolytus was not in communion with the great church when he wrote The Apostolic Tradition.  A dispute with Pope Callistus led him to break away and some scholars believe The Apostolic Tradition may have been written for his schismatic community (3).  Though recent scholarship is raising questions about the authorship and origins of the document, no one disputes its antiquity because numerous later church orders such as the Apostolic Constitutions and Testamentum Domini rely on it for some teachings (4).  
On the other hand, a late 4th or early 5th century church order, the Testamentum Domini  (from Eastern churches in Syria, Asia Minor or Egypt) not only permits widows to be ordained, but identifies them as part of the Church hierarchy.  While it distinguishes between deaconesses, widows and female presbyters, the greatest responsibility and honor belong to the widows.  Clearly, there was significant diversity in the early church about women’s leadership roles.  That said, in late antiquity it is important to distinguish between sacramental ministry and ordaining women as a widow or deacon; their leadership in liturgical ministry (the Divine Office); and the extent to which they were considered to be members of the clergy. These are not one and the same.  For example, while the Testamentum Domini attests that women were ordained and belonged to the clergy, scholars do not believe they exercised sacramental ministry in the sense of presiding at Eucharist or baptizing, beyond assisting with female anointing (5).   
Nevertheless, though some male church leaders in both East and West sought to curtail the wide-ranging ministry of widows, there is ample literary and archaeological evidence for the acceptance of ordained female deacons. Many scholars believe this was because of the need to control what public ministries women leaders could and could not perform (6).

Women Deacons in the East

The office of female deacon or deaconess was more prevalent in the East than the West.  We first see the Greek title diakonos with a masculine grammatical ending given to the female deacon Phoebe in Roman 16.  It has been falsely assumed that the diakonos title was replaced with the feminine deaconess (diakonissa) by the 3rd century.  However, though the evidence for what these women did is vague, the diakonos title for women deacons, as well as the term diakonissa recurs in both literary and archaeological inscription until the 6th century (13). 
One example is a 4th century tombstone on the Mount of Olives with a Greek inscription that reads: “Here lies the minister and bride of Christ, Sofia the deacon, a second Phoebe. She fell asleep in peace on the 21st of the month of March . . .” The Christian community in Jerusalem apparently understood Sofia’s ministry to be part of a 300-year-old tradition dating back to the Phoebe of Romans 16. Notable is the fact that for both Phoebe and Sofia, the Greek word diakonos is used, a masculine ending. There is ample archaeological evidence of other female deacons who ministered from the 1st to the 6th centuries in Palestine, Asia Minor, Greece, and Macedonia (14).   
Scholars Kevin Madigan and Carolyn Osiek surmise that “Phoebe and other unnamed women deacons like her in the first and perhaps second century belonged to an office or function that was not distinguished by sex" (15).  Nevertheless, Phoebe’s 1st century leadership role probably bore little resemblance to those of later deaconesses.  The Didascalia Apostolorum  (Teachings of the Apostles) is a document that reflects the pastoral situation of the Church in Syria and Palestine in the late 3rd century. It concerns itself among other things with the organization of ministry and leadership in the Church. The Didascalia goes to great lengths to restrict the role of widows, but it approves the public ministry of female deacons, permitting them to teach and anoint but not to baptize.  
 A later church order, The Apostolic Constitution, further restricts the ministry of women deacons by forbidding them to teach. Listings of church rules (canons), however, are often found to be more prescriptive than descriptive. Literary and archaeological data not infrequently point to more expanded roles for women than one would surmise from the written rules. Hence we read of Olympias, Dionysia, and other women deacons assisting in the liturgy, financially supporting and advising male church leaders, serving the poor, and, most usually, teaching women and anointing them at the time of their baptism. There is ample archaeological and literary evidence of other female deacons who ministered in the East from the 1st to the 6th centuries (16,17).  

Women Deacons in the West

The literary and archaeological evidence for female deacons in the West does not appear until the 5th century when texts proscribing women presbyters also appear. Western Conciliar documents plainly indicate the displeasure of churchmen over women’s ordination to the diaconate or any other office.  Canon 26 of the Council of Orange held in November 441, forbade the ordination of female deacons. Likewise in 517, the Council of Epaon abolished “the consecration of widows who are called women deacons”(18).  
However, as we have seen, texts written by male church authorities are one thing and the actual ministry of women is quite another.  Literary references to women deacons in the West, while not abundant, are definitely present over a seven century period. They are found in wills, letters and chronicles of women deacons. Remigius, the bishop of Reims (433-533) left a will bequeathing part of a vineyard to “my blessed daughter, Helaria the deaconess” well after the Council of Epaon forbade such a ministry (19).   



A Stature of the Deacon, Radegund in Paris. By Louis Desprez. Photo © Marie-Lan Nguyen

In the mid 6th century, the Frankish queen Radegund, was ordained a deacon by Bishop Medard, a bishop of Noyons and Tournai. Other women deacons in the West known to us by tombstone inscriptions include Anna, a 6th century woman deacon from Rome, Theodora, a female deacon from Gaul buried in 539 and Ausonia, a 6th century woman deacon from Dalmatia. In 753 the Archbishop of Ravenna, Sergius, “consecrated his wife, Euphemia, a deacon (diaconissa).” And in 799, an account of Pope Leo III’s return to Rome reports that he was greeted by the entire population including “holy women, women deacons (diaconissae) and the most notable matrons.”20   Abbesses in the western church were sometimes deacons as well.  Some commentators on canon law in the 9th and 10th centuries simply assumed that abbesses were deacons (21).  
Despite persistent early efforts to suppress women deacons in the West, we find a letter written in 1017 by Pope Benedict VIII conferring on the Bishop of Porto in Portugal “in perpetuity every episcopal ordination not only of presbyters but also of deacons or deaconesses (diaconissis) or subdeacons” (22)  This privilege was continued by subsequent Popes in various dioceses up to the time of Bishop Ottone, the Bishop of Lucca in Italy (1139-1146). Abelard and Heloise – 12th century theologians—both referred to Heloise as a deacon (23).   

Ordination Rites for Women Deacons in the East

For centuries scholars have agreed that the earliest rituals used to ordain female deacons are the same as those used for male deacons. Jean Morin, a 17th century liturgical expert, catalogued a large collection of ordination rites in Greek, Latin and Syriac:   Three of the most ancient Greek rituals, uniformly one in agreement, hand down to us the ordination of women deacons, administered by almost the same rite and words by which deacons (were ordained).  Both are called ordination [χειρτονια, χειροθεσια]. Both are celebrated at the altar by the bishop, and in the same liturgical space.  Hands are placed on both while the bishop offers prayers.  The stole is placed on the neck of both, both the ordained man and the ordained woman communicated, the chalice full of the blood of Christ placed in the hands of both so they may taste of it (24).     
An 8th century prayer for ordaining a woman deacon reads:   Holy and Omnipotent Lord, through the birth of your Only Son our God from a Virgin according to the flesh, you have sanctified the female sex.  You grant not only to men, but also to women the grace and coming of the Holy Spirit.  Please, Lord, look on this your maidservant and dedicate her to the task of your diaconate, and pour out into her the rich and abundant giving of your Holy Spirit.  Preserve her so that she may always perform her ministry with orthodox faith and irreproachable conduct, according to what is pleasing to you. For to you is due all glory and honor (25). 

Ordination Rites for Women Deacons in the West

An 8th century liturgical book of Bishop Egbert of York contains a single prayer used for ordaining either a male or female deacon.  This is the earliest ritual in the West for the ordination of a woman deacon.  The prayer reads: Give heed, Lord, to our prayers and upon this your servant send forth that spirit of you blessing in order that, enriched by heavenly gifts, he (or she)might be able to obtain grace through your majesty and by living well offer an example to others… (26).  Other rituals for the ordination of female deacons appear in 9th, 10th and 12th century sacramentaries and pontificals. By the 13th century the ordination rites for women deacons were eliminated from the Roman Pontifical and do not appear again. 

What happened?

By the 12th century, women deacons in the East had become very rare. A 12th century Greek canonist Theoldore Balsomon wrote:  “In times past, orders of deaconesses were recognized and they had access to the sanctuary, but the monthly affliction banished them. . . .” (27).   In the 14th century, another eastern canonist, Matthew Blastares, acknowledged that while women deacons had existed, this was eventually forbidden by later fathers “because of the monthly flow that cannot be controlled.”  In the West, even though Pope Gregory I (590-604) said that menstruation should not be an obstacle to women attending church, purity rules eventually prevailed. In the end, women deacons would be banned in the main, because of their normal biological functions. 
Perhaps the most significant factor leading to the demise of women deacons in the West came in the mid-12th century when the definition of ordination underwent a dramatic shift.  In the first millennium, a Christian was ordained, consecrated or blessed to perform a specific job or ministry needed in the community. Gary Macy writes:  “Ordination did not give a person, for instance, the irrevocable and portable power of consecrating the bread and wine, or of leading the liturgy; rather, a particular community charged a person or persons to play a leadership role within that community (and only within that community) and that person or persons would lead the liturgy because of the leadership role they played within the community”(28). 
During the 12th century, the definition of ordination came to signify that recipients were given an indelible character marking them as different from other Christians.  Now the priest and only the priest received the power to consecrate bread and wine. Further, the indelible character and power to consecrate was portable and could be exercised anywhere, in any community. Ordination came to include only ministries that related to service at the altar. Thus only the orders of priest, deacon and subdeacon were recognized.  Finally, “all of the other earlier orders were no longer considered to be orders at all” (29).   
A highly influential late 12th century western canonist, Huguccio of Bologna, wrote that even if a woman were to be ordained it would not “take” because of  “the law of the church and sex” (30).   In other words, the fact of being biologically female prevented women from being ordained, and what is more, because they were biologically female, they never could have been truly ordained in the first place. Therefore all past female ordinations were not ordinations at all, at least according to the new understanding of ordination.  Given that male ordinations in previous centuries also entailed a different understanding of the meaning of orders, one could argue that those male ordinations didn’t “take” either, a point that seems to have escaped our esteemed canonists.

THE MINISTRY OF DEACONS





Because of the work of scholars such as Gary Macy and others, we now know that first millennium titles for church orders such as bishop, priest and deacon are not equivalent in meaning to the same titles today. For example, in some 3rd and 4th century church communities, deacons served as important administrators of church properties whose authority was second only to that of the bishop (7). 
The earliest references to deacons in the New Testament are found in Paul’s letters. According to Carolyn Osiek, the opening lines of Paul’s letter to the Philippians “contain a reference found nowhere else in the greetings of his letters: he and Timothy greet not only the holy ones or saints in Philippi, but add a greeting to their episkopoi and diakonoi” (8)  The Greek word episkopos does not yet mean what later came to be the office of bishop but “is more likely a reference to the leaders of house churches, groupings of believers that met in private houses for worship and other means of nurturing their faith life”(9)   The term diakonoi is “a general word for official representatives, ministers, attendants, and agents. Here it refers to a designated group of persons who provide some kind of assistance in the community”(10).   
Acts 6: 1-6  tells us that seven men were called to do the diakonia (service) of the table leaving the apostles to do the diakonia of the word.  This text is commonly cited as the first installation of men to the diaconate. However, it is notable that the men are never given the title diakonos [deacon, minister] as was Phoebe in Romans 16:1-2. They did receive a laying on of hands to minister to the needy, and because of this, the text is often cited as the first example of ordained deacons. The early deacon Stephen performed miracles, preached and was eventually martyred, and Philip the deacon preached and baptized in Samaria (Acts 6:1-6, 6:7-7:60; 8:4-40).  In later centuries the role of deacon came to include pastoral work, baptism, care of the poor, assistance at liturgies and in the 4th century, could include management of church property, the upkeep of churches and cemeteries and care of the sick and widows. According to John Wijngaard, in St. John Chrysostom’s time:  “…the entire government of the temporal affairs of the Church lay in the hands of deacons” (11).   
By the 12th century, the separate ministry of deacon was subsumed into the priesthood, becoming a preliminary step to ordination. Only at the second Vatican Council did the separate ministry of permanent deacons reemerge.

Named and Unnamed Women Deacons and What They Did

  • Manaris, Romana: prepared women for baptism and offered them hospitality during the transitional time before and after 
  • Unnamed Deacon of Caesarea: provided hospitality and protection to socially vulnerable women Susanna: served as advocates and agents for laywomen in the church 
  • Theophilia: travelled with women pilgrimsSevera of Jerusalem: conducted pilgrimages themselves 
  • Eugenia, Jannia, Olympias, Theodula, Valeriana: served as monastic superiors
  • Unnamed deacon of Theodoret served as trusted teachers 
  • Lampadion, Elisanthia, Martyria, and Palladia: were members of monastic communities but not superiors
  • Marthana, Matrona of Cosila: supervised important centers of pilgrimage 
  • Eusebia: lived in their own houses
  • Elisanthia, Martyria, Palladia: supervised liturgical roles of women and led them in liturgical prayer
  • Athanasia of Korykos: raised a foster child
  • Women deacons in 5-6th century Edessa: poured wine and water into the chalice at the Eucharist and other actions in the sanctuary in the absence of a priest or deacon 
  • 5th century unnamed woman deacon with multiple later historical citations: proclaimed the Gospel and other Scriptures in assemblies of women

DEVELOPMENTS

In 1995 the Canon Law Society of America study reported that it is within the authority of the Church to ordain women to the permanent diaconate,  and only a few adjustments to canon law would be needed.31   In 1974, a member of the Vatican's International Theological Commission (ITC), Cipriano Vagaggini OSB (1909-99), published detailed research that women deacons in Church history were ordained within the sanctuary by the bishop, in the presence of the presbyterate, and by the imposition of hands (traditional historical requirements for ordination).  In 2001, over 30 years after Paul VI had asked the commission to explore the question of a female diaconate; the Theological Commission said only that the teaching office of the Church had yet to decide on women deacons. (32)

PAT SAYS:


MOTHER FRANCES MEIGH ON HER ORDINATION DAT 14.9.1998

I have agreed with the ordination of women for more than 20 years now.
It was that belief that led me to agree with Frances Meigh's request to me that I ordain her a deacon and priest in 1998.
Mother Francis (86) continues as a hermit priest, iconographer and artist in her hermitage at Forkhill in County Armagh.
It is all summed up very beautifully in a poem by Frances Croake:

Among the animals in the cold dank dark of a stable,
After the pain, and the bleeding, and the birthing;
Mary looked down at the baby lying across her legs
And said: “this is my Body. This is my Blood”.

In the shadows on the bleak Calvary hill,
After the pain, and the bleeding, and the dying;
Mary looked down at the broken frame across her legs
And said: “This is my Body. This is my Blood”.

It's just as well that she said it to Him then.
For now, dry old men,
In brocaded robes belying barrenness,
Ordain that she cannot say it to Him now!



Saturday, 12 August 2017

A FERTILISED OVUM IS NOT A HUMAN ???





THE IRISH TIMES

PATSY MC GARRY - RELIGIOUS AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT

It is simply wrong to call a fertilised ovum a human

Until 1869, the Catholic Church did not believe removal of a foetus was homicide if it took place before the child began to move in the womb

“A sperm is not a human being, an ■ ovum is not a human being. Together they do not make up a human being. They become an embryo with a very risky future”

It is time we talked about the embryo. Calmly, seriously, rationally. Last week it emerged that scientists at Oregon Health and Science University had successfully modified human embryos to remove genetic mutations that cause heart failure in otherwise healthy young people.
Paula Amato, a fertility specialist involved in the study, said: “This embryo gene correction method, if proven safe, can potentially be used to prevent transmission of genetic disease to future generations.”
Many welcomed the hugely significant implications such “editing” of human genomes can have for the avoidance of genetically inherited conditions, also including cystic fibrosis and some breast cancers. Others demurred. “What about the embryo?” they asked.
The Oregon study was a “game-changer” in scientific and ethical terms, said Aisling de Paor, law lecturer at Dublin City University. It was one step closer to an era of “designer babies” she said. “It opens the door to tailoring the genetic make-up of our children. It also facilitates the selection of hair or eye colour, sporting ability or behavioural traits.”
She continued: “It is no longer in the realm of science fiction to imagine a Gattaca-type society focused on genetic cleansing. We need to be worried about the possibility of this new age of eugenics.”
So, seeming to ignore the positives, she felt the Oregon study could signal a reinvigoration of eugenic-type ideas discredited since the Nazi era. Quite a leap. She did not stop there.
There was, she said, with these new developments, an “ethical concern that technology will be used to screen out disability in society. This is extremely worrying from a human rights perspective, and in relation to the current and future rights of people with disabilities.”
Really? Surely people suffering as a result of genetic disability, not to mention their parents, would be among the first to welcome the possible elimination of such conditions.
Natural processes
Behind such legal and ethical thinking is an overly precious argument against interference with the natural processes of the body, an argument long lost to the great benefit of humanity.
And so we have surgery (which could be equated with genome “editing”), antibiotics, vaccinations etc, all “inteferences” with the overt intent of sustaining the right to life in living, breathing, returned-to-health human beings.

Image result for patsy mc garry

Bishop Kevin Doran was even more unhappy with the Oregon study. Chairman of the Catholic Bishops’ Consultative Group on Bioethics and Life Questions, he objected, full stop, to the use of embryos in such research, regardless of the outcome. Embryos were being “deprived of any other purpose than to be used for research and then disposed of”, he said.
“These individual human beings are all the more entitled to protection precisely because they do not yet have the capacity to speak for themselves or to give their consent,” he said.
It is simply wrong to describe a fertilised ovum as a human being. A fertilised ovum is not a human being,it is a biological reaction. It has no head, no heart, no spine, no consciousness. It is a collection of biological elements which is no more a human being than my leg, my arm, any of my organs, even my toe nails.
It may someday become a human being, but it is not a human being.
A sperm is not a human being, an ovum is not a human being. Together they do not make up a human being. They become an embryo with a very risky future. Studies indicate that up to 50 per cent of embryos are lost before implantation, and of the remainder up to 20 per cent are lost in miscarriages.
In other words, as many as 70 per cent of embryos may never make it.
This raises an obvious question. Why is such massive annual loss of millions of human beings throughout the world not marked anywhere in religious or secular ceremony?
If secular and religious authorities
really, seriously believe the embryo has such unique moral status, why is such regular “disposal” of so many ritually ignored? Indeed it is not so long ago in Ireland, as elsewhere, that miscarriages were disposed of as waste.
And it is not correct for Bishop Doran to state it has been “the consistent belief of the church” that a human embryo has the dignity proper to a person. It has been the belief of the Catholic Church only since 1869, or for the past 148 years.
Independent being
Up to then the Catholic Church did not believe removal of the foetus was homicide if it took place before quickening – when the child began to move in the womb. This quickening, for theologians down through the centuries, was evidence of an independent being within its mother’s body and that was when they deemed it had acquired a soul and became a human being.
Up to then it did not have a soul and so was not a person. It was a foetus.

Image result for pope gregoryXIV

In 1591, Pope Gregory XIV determined quickening took place at 166 days of pregnancy, almost 24 weeks – coincidentally the current legal limit on abortion in the UK.
To spell it out, removal of the foetus before then was not considered homicide in church teaching because you were not dealing with a human being but with a foetus without a soul. That, more or less, was the church position for 1,869 years and with a grounding that makes so much more sense than that of the past 148 years which merely asserts as belief that an embryo is a human being.
‘‘ Removal of the foetus before 166 days was not considered homicide in Church teaching because you were not dealing with a human being but with a foetus without a soul

PAT SAYS:

I was surprised to see this article by Patsy McGarry the other morning in THE IRISH TIMES.

I may be wrong - but I think it a rather controversial article in Ireland where the public is so divided on matters like abortion and gene editing.

And Patsy Mc Garry is hardly famous for being controversial.

He is very friendly with Archbishop Diarmuid Martin of Dublin and he has been very, very slow to publish articles about the Maynooth scandals etc.




I would have thought that Patsy liked to keep well in with the Catholic Hierarchy and this article will probably annoy many of them - not least Kevin Doran the Bishop of Elphin who thinks that homosexuality is a disability like Downs Syndrome.

But I must say that I learned things I did not know from this article.

For instance, I DID NOT KNOW that up until 1869 the Catholic Church did not regard the removal of a foetus from the womb as killing !

And I did not know that in 1591 Pope Gregory XIV said that the soul appeared in the foetus at 166 days of gestation - 26 weeks into pregnancy.





Image result for the human soul
One of the questions that have always perplexed me was the question of when God infused the soul into the foetus. To be on the safe side I had always settled for ensoulment "at conception". 

So, who is right?

Is ensoulment at 166 days as a pope said?

Or is it at conception?

Or is it at some other time?

As Patsy McGarry pointed out 50% of conceptions do not lead to babies developing or being born? 

People often ask for serious blogs.

Well this is one TODAY!



Friday, 11 August 2017

MAYNOOTH 2017

MAYNOOTH

CLASS PIECE 2017

A Maynooth source has sent us a copy of the 2017 class piece that is hanging in the main corridor in Maynooth.

But is surrounded in mystery.

It contains THREE MISSING PERSONS / DEACONS:

SEAN "KING PUCK" JONES - KERRY

MICHAEL "GORGEOUS" BYRNE - DUBLIN

AIDAN GALLAGHER - TUAM




Where are these missing deacons?

A Kerry priest tells us that Sean Jones is being secretly transferred from being a deacon in Listowel to being a deacon at the Cathedral in Killarney?

He also says that Ray Browne is giving Puck "a long goodbye"?

Tuam deacon Aidan Gallagher has disappeared off the radar completely amid rumours of family crisis and reports of Garda involvement?

Gorgeous has finished in the Irish College in Rome and HAS NOT BEEN SEEN at the Pro Cathedral or even in his favourite haunts in Barcelona - although there is rumour among the Dublin clergy that Diarmuid Martin will SECRETLY ordain him at an unknown venue in November ???

DID THE NEW PRESIDENT FOR 3 YEARS - FANNY MULLANEY - RUSH INTO PRINT WITH THE 2017 CLASSPIECE AND IS NOW STUCK WITH IT?

OTHER INFORMATION IN THE CURRENT MAYNOOTH KALENDARIUM 2016 - 2017

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX


XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX


XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX


MISSING - 

1. THE THREE KERRY SEMINARIANS THAT WERE DISMISSED

2. KEVIN MC ELROY - DOWN AND CONNOR

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX


THOSE RESPONSIBLE FOR MAYNOOTH





WE BRING THIS INFORMATION FOR THE BENEFIT OF READERS.

COMMENTS WELCOMED

Thursday, 10 August 2017

CELIBACY / CLERICAL SEX IN ASIA

I understand that many people are interested in clerical sex scandals at home.

This Blog will continue to deal with those.

BUT we are CATHOLIC and Catholic means UNIVERSAL.

We must be concerned with all that is happening around the Catholic world.

Today this Blog presents a film about what is happening in the most Catholic country im Asia - the Philippines. 

Please watch it and CARE.





The next BIG SCANDAl will come from THE MISSIONS - where many Irish missionaries have abused.

PLEASE CARE !!!


KING PUCK AND KERRY:



Clergy of Kerry diocese have been in touch with the Blog to inform is that Deacon Sean "King Puck" Jones have been in touch with us to tell us that Jones is being transferred from Listowel parish to be a deacon in the cathedral in Killarney.

Image result for killarney cathedral


XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Image result for bishop ray browne

They tell us that the majority of Kerry priests believe that JONES should NOT be ordained and that the move to Killarney is Bishop Ray Browne's LONG GOODBYE to Jones ???

They also believe that the three Maynoopth seminarians dismissed by Ray Browne have suffered a TERRIBLE INJUSTICE !!!

They say that Ray Browne is a nice man to meet but he makes AWFUL DECISIONS !!!

Apparently, these coming few days are the days of the KING PUCK festival in Kerry.

The Kerry priests want to wish Sean Jones:

HAPPY FEAST DAY !!!

Tuesday, 8 August 2017

HIT AND RUN BISHOP ON SEX CHARGES


Lawsuit Accuses Former Phoenix Bishop of Sexually Abusing Boy
By MATT STEVENS AUG. 4, 2017


A Roman Catholic bishop who once led the Diocese of Phoenix has been accused of repeatedly sexually abusing a boy decades ago, according to a lawsuit filed in Arizona Superior Court.
The lawsuit alleges that in the late 1970s and early ’80s, the bishop, Thomas J. O’Brien, placed his hands on the boy’s thighs, kissed him on the lips and performed oral sex on him. A hearing connected to the case was held this week, drawing additional attention to the lawsuit, which was filed last year.
In a telephone interview late Thursday, Tim Hale, the lawyer for the unidentified plaintiff, said the bishop’s acts caused his client to suffer from anxiety, panic attacks and emotional distress.
The abuse, a court document said, also caused the man to repress “all memory” of what had happened.
Mr. Hale said Arizona case law allows victims of childhood sexual abuse to file claims within two years of recovering those memories, regardless of when the crimes may have occurred.
“Recovering these memories has turned his world on its head,” Mr. Hale said of his client. “He’s really concerned about his ability to provide for his family.”
In a statement, the Diocese of Phoenix said Bishop O’Brien “categorically denies the allegations.”
 “Bishop O’Brien was never assigned to any of the parishes or schools identified in the lawsuit, and no specific information has been presented which connects Bishop O’Brien to the plaintiff,” the statement said. “The Diocese of Phoenix immediately contacted the Maricopa County attorney’s office upon learning of these allegations in September of 2016, and has offered its assistance and cooperation with any law enforcement investigation into the matter.”
In 2003, as the priest abuse scandal spread to all corners of the Catholic Church, a yearlong grand jury investigation into accusations of sexual misconduct in the Phoenix Diocese resulted in indictments against at least six priests accused of abusing children.
Bishop O’Brien, who was the spiritual leader of more than 400,000 Catholics, signed an agreement admitting that he had known of accusations of sexual abuse by priests, but at the time, prosecutors said there was no evidence that he had engaged in criminal sexual misconduct.
As part of his agreement with prosecutors, Bishop O’Brien admitted that he had shuffled priests into new assignments without telling their new superiors or parishioners of the abuse allegations. In exchange for his cooperation, he avoided prosecution.
“This has been a very difficult time for our entire diocese, for me, for our priests and especially for the victims of sexual misconduct,” the bishop wrote in a statement around the time he reached the agreement.
Weeks after the agreement was announced, Bishop O’Brien was arrested in connection with a fatal hit and run. He resigned his 22-year post atop the Diocese of Phoenix, and he was found guilty the next year of leaving the scene of a fatal accident.
He was sentenced to four years of probation and 1,000 hours of community service.
BISHOPS HIT AND RUN FROM 2004:


Jim Lee Reed, 43, killed in hit and run accident in Phoenix, Arizona. File Photo Reuters.
JIM REED - HIT AND RUN VICTIM
Bishop Thomas J. O'Brien is the highest ranking Catholic cleric ever charged criminally in the United States. 

Jim Reed, a pedestrian, died in the street where he was struck.
On Monday, February 9, Bishop O'Brien took the stand in a desperate attempt to save himself. Pale, nervous, hands shaking whenever they weren't clasped together, O'Brien exhibited the warmth of a dead cod. While sticking to the incredible claim that he had no idea what he'd run over, the bishop stumbled repeatedly regarding his behavior after the hit-and-run. Worse, his efforts to convey remorse on the witness stand were as piously mechanical as a professional pallbearer's.
It wasn't enough that he wanted to express his regret to Reed's family. No, O'Brien clumsily added that he wanted to express regret to the entire "Native American community," as if the tragedy were racial and not personal.
The night of the fatality, O'Brien sped off. He testified that he parked his car in the garage, inspected the windshield that was destroyed by the impact, went inside and had a few slices of pizza. The next morning he got up, ate breakfast, dilly-dallied for three and a half hours over television, served Mass, returned home and watched sports shows and then went to a gala Father's Day dinner party at his sister's. The phone rang during the festivities and Monsignor Dale Fushek, the bishop's friend and closest adviser, informed O'Brien that there had been a fatal hit-and-run at 19th Avenue and Glendale. The police had O'Brien's license plate number and wanted to question him.
Fushek asked if the bishop had been in that particular neighborhood on Saturday night when the fatal hit-and-run occurred. "I might have been," replied the bishop. Might have been?
Refusing to level with his friend and adviser; it's no wonder that Bishop O'Brien didn't hang up and contact the authorities who were searching for him. Instead, he returned to the party. Sat back down to dinner. He stuck around while presents were opened. When he did go home, he didn't call the police. Nor did he answer his ringing phone. When he woke up, he didn't call the police. When the police banged on his door, he didn't answer.
O'Brien didn't call the authorities after the accident. He didn't call the police 24 hours after the accident once he learned they were looking for him. Nor did he contact detectives the following morning. The bishop hid from the law.
When the detectives finally gained entry, they asked the bishop why he hadn't contacted the police, given that he knew he was wanted for questioning.
Bishop O'Brien replied that he didn't know how to contact the police.
The bishop's lawyer tried to salvage the destruction by leading O'Brien.
Why, yes, of course the bishop knew how to phone the authorities. O'Brien simply "misspoke" during his interview with the police.
From the witness stand, O'Brien claimed that what he meant to say was that because Monsignor Fushek hadn't given him the name of a particular officer or a particular department, the leader of the Roman Catholic church here was at a loss as to whom to call at police headquarters.
It was Monsignor Fushek's fault.
In fact, Fushek "misled" the bishop because the monsignor said the accident was at the intersection of 19th Avenue and Glendale. The bishop testified that the accident was west of that particular intersection.
In fact, the accident was at 1950 West Glendale Avenue.
It was Monsignor Fushek's fault.
In an effort to suggest that the bishop in reality did feel some sort of remorse, despite his behavior, the defense attorney had the bishop recount the tears he shed with his housekeeper in the "Pope's Room" at O'Brien's residence.
Of course, those tears only fell after the police had interrogated O'Brien -- after he finally realized that this tragedy would not be swept under the rug.


Before the hit-and-run, we all knew this particular religious leader for his disgraceful behavior in the local sex scandal involving his clergy. Bishop O'Brien's criminal complicity in the sexual abuse of minors by his priests went on for decades. Last June, the bishop signed an admission of guilt in the child molestation cases when prosecutors threatened to haul him before a grand jury unless he confessed and relinquished control of the diocese. O'Brien further promised to undertake serious reform to prevent any more predation by priests upon the innocent.
Within two weeks of this unprecedented humiliation, Bishop O'Brien -- while driving a church vehicle -- struck a pedestrian who was killed.  
On the evening of June 14 at approximately 8:30 p.m., Bishop Thomas J. O'Brien stepped on the accelerator and fled the carnage.
Bishop O'Brien drove off without offering last rites.
Bishop O'Brien drove off without rendering aid, without summoning emergency personnel, without providing information for authorities.
In fact, the head of the Catholic church in greater Phoenix hid from investigators.
When the police finally tracked down Bishop O'Brien, he claimed he had no idea he'd struck and killed a fellow human being. He claimed he had no idea he'd collided with a bear of a man, Jim Reed. The bishop claimed he had no idea he'd catapulted the 240-pound Reed into the air after the initial impact. The bishop claimed he had no idea that, when the windshield was shattered moments later, the explosive damage was caused by a man made in the image and likeness of God.
Bishop Thomas J. O'Brien said he thought he'd hit a dog.
Bishop Thomas J. O'Brien is a monster.


By now, most readers are familiar with Bishop O'Brien's arrogant refusal to accept any responsibility for the death of Jim Reed, as well as his long record of denying that he collaborated in sustaining a culture of sexual abuse in the Phoenix diocese.
These are grievous, mortal sins.
But I want to tell you about a venial sin, something that speaks volumes about this man's character. If you want to know about this cleric's soul, you need look no further than a previous accident.
This is a story the jurors did not hear.
In October 2002, Robert Schake won a coveted parking space as an employee incentive from Catholic Healthcare West at Third Avenue and Thomas next to St. Joseph's Hospital. He'd occupied the coveted slot for approximately two weeks when he noticed damage to his vehicle. After returning from lunch one afternoon, he observed that his car was gouged. There were a total of five scrapes each about eight inches in length along the back end of his vehicle on the driver's side.
Schake, who works in information technology, approached the problem calmly and logically. He returned to the parking lot later that day to inspect the car in the adjoining space for damage. He immediately saw that the right front bumper of the neighboring car was banged up in a manner that precisely lined up with the impact on his own vehicle.
When he asked the parking lot's head of security who owned the car in the neighboring space, he was informed that the individual was none other than Bishop Thomas O'Brien.
Schake went to the headquarters of the diocese. Of course, the bishop was not available.
Reached by telephone, Schake told me what happened.
"It took a while to get this thing through, two to three weeks," said Schake. "Everyone was very nice, but I had to follow up to get it done."
Even though Schake was an innocent victim, he had to force the issue to get his meager compensation of several hundred dollars against the bishop's insurance company. In the process, Schake was turned over to the bishop's attorney, Gregg Leasey.
Because of Schake's doggedness, the bishop's insurance company eventually paid for the repairs.
Did the bishop ever tell Schake he was sorry? Did the bishop ever drop him a note apologizing for the accident? Did the bishop ever express any regret for the aggravation he'd caused Schake?
"No," said Schake, "none whatsoever."
In fact, the bishop took just the opposite attitude. He refused to accept any responsibility.
The bishop's attorney informed Schake that O'Brien denied any involvement in the accident.
"He had no knowledge of hitting my vehicle according to the lawyer," recalled Schake.
Doesn't that sound familiar.
That's the same thing the bishop now claims in his second hit-and-run. Except this time there was a dead man in the street, the bishop's windshield was shattered and clotted with human remains and O'Brien claims he has no knowledge of what hit his vehicle. He has no idea that he ran over a 240-pound giant. His mind was elsewhere.
Bishop O'Brien lied about the parking-lot accident, and I believe he's lying now.
There was a witness to the parking-lot accident.
The head of security observed Bishop Thomas O'Brien exit his Buick after striking Schake's car.
According to Supervisor Mike Gerard, the bishop inspected his own car after the accident and then went over and examined the damage to Schake's vehicle.
In fact, in two separate interviews with the police, Gerard told authorities that Bishop O'Brien had scrutinized both vehicles after the collision.  
And yet the bishop left neither a business card nor a note on Schake's windshield for possible follow-up. He did not report the fender-bender to any of the security guards. He just disappeared.
This obviously made a big impression on Schake at the time of the accident.
"[The security guard] said he saw the bishop looking at his own vehicle as well as mine. I was surprised when I learned that the car belonged to the bishop," said Schake. "I was surprised that ownership of the accident was not taken. That would be true of anyone."
It would be particularly true for the head of the Roman Catholic church in Phoenix. But Bishop Thomas J. O'Brien never took responsibility for his behavior in matters large or small.


It's Wednesday, February 4, and the defense team of Tom Henze and Patrick McGroder III are wearing identical, tailored, gray pinstripe suits. The sartorial flash of the lawyers is exceeded only by their reputations.
At first glance, Bishop O'Brien appears to be wearing only a simple priest's black suit. But the right hand sports a gold ring larger than a Godiva chocolate. Around his neck hangs a crucifix embedded with enormous, gaudy chunks of turquoise. And his fingers are wonderfully manicured.
Across the aisle, prosecutors Anthony Novitsky and Mitch Rand make do with honest wool suits and plain wedding bands.
The bishop has many friends in the gallery. Staunch and faithful, they believe Mary was a virgin, and they believe O'Brien is innocent. The bishop's sister sits in the back row. The siblings are so identical in appearance that it often looks like the bishop is sitting at the rear of the court in a dyed red wig.
Today, the dead man, Jim Reed, will be tried for being a drunken Indian.
McGroder is arguably the state's top personal injury lawyer, well known for representing police officer Jason Schechterle who was horribly burned after his Ford Crown Victoria burst into flames.
A specialist in accident-scene reconstructions, McGroder has already proved his worth eliciting damaging admissions from a detective early in the trial. The witness conceded that during the bishop's first interview, the officer had said it was possible O'Brien never saw what he hit.
Henze is infamous in criminal circles. In 1983, Keith Begay, the head of the transportation authority on the Navajo reservation, was videotaped taking a cash bribe. He later confessed. Henze walked him.
Today, the defense will attempt to convince the jury that the victim, Jim Reed, was so intoxicated at the time of the accident that he was responsible for what happened.
This is clearly an attempt to take the jury's eye off the ball. Who caused the accident is not an issue. Bishop O'Brien is not charged with causing the accident but rather fleeing its aftermath.
While the autopsy report makes it clear that Reed was intoxicated and the physical evidence is abundant that he was jaywalking, the defense chooses to red-marker the obvious with Stacey Arey, a single mom who lives in an apartment at the scene of the accident.
Unlike the parade of unctuous expert witnesses, Arey is forthright and likable. She is led smoothly through her tale by Henze and charms the jury by continually mispronouncing the floor covering in her apartment as "linoneum." She apologizes each time she stumbles.
On the evening Reed was killed, Arey had the door to her apartment open so that the fumes from her housecleaning could vent. Upon returning to her living room, she found the huge, six-foot-two Reed swaying unsteadily and demanding money.
She had no idea who this intoxicated giant was and quickly grabbed a knife.
"I don't know you. You better get out of here before I stab you," Arey recounted for the jury.
She asked the judge if it was permissible to repeat the expletive she'd hurled at the intruder and then quoted herself more vividly.
Reed demanded two dollars from Arey for the bus.
Faced with armed resistance, Reed staggered out of the apartment and into the path of Bishop O'Brien.
This was a colorful anecdote told by a sympathetic witness that was wildly irrelevant to the case at hand.
On cross-examination, prosecutor Novitsky nicely parried Henze with irrelevancies of his own.
Wasn't it true that Reed did not force his way in because, after all, the door was open? Wasn't it true that he could have been in the complex visiting friends and become disoriented after drinking and thought he'd walked into a buddy's apartment? Wasn't it true that he never threatened Arey?  
Arey agreed with all of Novitsky's points, but so what?
No prosecutor could turn this into a benign encounter. There was a drunken stranger in the woman's living room panhandling for bus fare.
Point, team O'Brien.
Tarred with the obvious, Novitsky concluded with an ethnic elbow.
When Arey called 911, asked the prosecutor, hadn't she referred to Reed as "a big wetback dude"?


As long as I've reported upon Bishop Thomas J. O'Brien, for the many years that I have edited articles that documented his role in the child abuse that has plagued the Catholic families of Phoenix, with all of the stories I have read in other publications, one thing is constant.
Bishop O'Brien never accepts responsibility for his sins.
In 1990, Terry Greene wrote a package of articles in New Times detailing the outrageous child abuse cases of three priests. The groundbreaking coverage documented how Bishop O'Brien went to bat for the molesters with the judges during sentencing, thus helping to secure negligible penalties such as working in the church library. Of course, the victims and their families were ignored.
When called out, Bishop O'Brien refused to accept any responsibility for his part in creating and sustaining the culture of predation within the diocese.
In the wake of these articles and during a personal confrontation in Durant's restaurant on Central Avenue, Bishop O'Brien refused, once again, to accept any responsibility, to make himself available for an interview, to even speak. When the two of us were introduced inside the steak house, we shook hands, but I refused to let go of his grip. I asked when would he take Terry Greene's calls, when would he provide answers, when would he explain his behavior?
Bishop O'Brien froze, uttered not a word and just stared at me. I looked back into the eyes of complacency and collaboration.
Last year, writing for this newspaper, Robert Nelson broke the story of yet another molestation of a child by a local priest, a revelation that was part of the national scandal crucifying the faithful, destroying families and threatening the church's financial underpinning.
Nelson's article was the first in what became a media wave of publicity regarding new cases of abuse within the Phoenix church.
Once again, Bishop O'Brien refused to accept responsibility. He stonewalled. He hid.
In the end, O'Brien admitted that at least 50 priests and church workers in greater Phoenix had been accused of preying upon children.
A letter from Boston's notorious Cardinal Law explained that he'd shipped priests who were sexual molesters to Phoenix because O'Brien's was one of those "dioceses with policies that were less restrictive than ours."
Last year, a grand jury investigated whether O'Brien violated state law by refusing to report cases of child abuse to the authorities as required and whether he transferred molesters to unsuspecting parishes without warning local congregations of past behavior. On the eve of an indictment, County Attorney Rick Romley opted for the high ground. Rather than file charges, he forced the bishop to admit guilt in return for immunity from prosecution.
In the presence of an attorney on June 3, Bishop Thomas J. O'Brien signed the following short statement: "I acknowledge that I allowed Roman Catholic priests under my supervision to work with minors after becoming aware of allegations of sexual misconduct. I further acknowledge that priests who had prior allegations of sexual misconduct made against them were transferred to ministries without full disclosure to their superiors or to the community in which they were assigned."
In a bizarre development, Bishop O'Brien reversed himself and once again declared himself not guilty of anything. He reversed himself on the very day that the county attorney made the agreement public.
At a news conference, O'Brien repudiated the signed statement, declaring, "To suggest a cover-up is just plain false. I did not oversee decades of wrongdoing."
Prosecutor Romley exploded.
"Is he revising history?" asked Romley. "Did he fail to understand the confession he was signing? Did he fail to understand that he needed immunity?"
Of course he failed to understand. He had his immunity and once again he refused to accept responsibility for his conduct.
Within two weeks, on June 14, O'Brien would strike down Jim Reed.


Bishop O'Brien testified that he didn't see what he hit that fateful night in June. He heard the noise as his windshield exploded, looked over to the passenger side and saw nothing.
He said under oath that he thought maybe he hit a dog. He said under oath that he thought maybe someone had thrown a rock at his car. He did not know.  
How can that be true?
Bishop Thomas J. O'Brien wants us to believe that when he heard his windshield break apart, it was the first sign of trouble.
That cannot possibly be true.
The first impact, both heard and felt, was when the front of his Buick smashed into all 240 pounds of Jim Reed. The impact was so tectonic that it flipped this giant of a man into the air and then onto the bishop's windshield.
When Reed landed upon the car's front window, it was the second explosive event.
Whatever else was passing through the bishop's mind, there is no way that smashing into the pedestrian didn't snap him out of his reverie and hone his focus.
When Jim Reed obliterated the bishop's windshield, Thomas J. O'Brien saw exactly what happened.

PAT SAYS:

Here we have a prime example of the arrogance of Catholic bishops.

Bishop O'Brien:

1. Covered up for abusing priests.
2. Was an abuser himself.
3. Drove away after killing a man with his car.

Why? Because he wanted to. Because he was a coward. And because he was sure he would get away with it.

Hitting someone with our car is a nightmare we all have. Even if I hit a rabbit or a bird by accident it haunts me for an age.

But imagine hitting and killing a human being?

And if we did surely we would stop, try and assist our victim and get an ambulance and the police.

AND IF YOU WERE A PRIEST / BISHOP - what about THE LAST RITES ???

But then of course if you have been an abuser and have been covering up abuse its only one little step extra down the road of arrogance to drive away from a hit and run.

What does all this say for Bishop O'Brien's faith?

What does it say about his presumed relationship with Jesus Christ?

I think it tells us you can be a "Catholic" but not a Christian.

It tells us you can be a "churchman" and not have a shred of human decency or any kind of conscience.

Whats the old saying: "The nearer the Church, the further from God".