HANG KUNG'S LETTER TO POPE FRANCIS

Hans Küng, (born March 19, 1928, Sursee, Switz.), Swiss Roman Catholic theologian whose controversial liberal views led to his censorship by the Vatican in 1979.

Küng studied at Gregorian University in Rome and obtained a doctorate in theology from the Catholic Institute at the Sorbonne in 1957. He was ordained a Roman Catholic priest in 1954, and he taught at the University of Münster in West Germany (1959–60) and at the University of Tübingen (1960–96), where he also directed the Institute for Ecumenical Research from 1963. In 1962 he was named by Pope John XXIIIa peritus (theological consultant) for the second Vatican Council.

Küng’s prolific writings questioned the formulation of such traditional church doctrine as papal infallibility, the divinity of Christ, and teachings about the Virgin Mary. In 1979 a Vatican censure that banned his teaching as a Catholic theologian provoked international controversy, and in 1980 a settlement was reached at Tübingen that allowed him to teach under secular rather than Catholic auspices. His more recent research has focused on interreligious cooperation and the creation of a global ethic. His publications include Rechtfertigung: Die Lehre Karl Barths und eine Katholische Besinnung (1957; Justification: The Doctrine of Karl Barth and a Catholic Reflection), Konzil und Wiedervereinigung (1960; The Council, Reform, and Reunion), Die Kirche (1967; The Church), Unfehlbar?(1970; Infallible?), Christ sein (1974; On Being a Christian), Existiert Gott? (1978; Does God Exist?), and Ewiges Leben? (1982; Eternal Life?).

--------------------------------------------

“Receive this comprehensive documentation and allow a free, unprejudiced and open-ended discussion in our church of the all the unresolved and suppressed questions connected with the infallibility dogma. In this way, the problematic Vatican heritage of the past 150 years could be come to terms with honestly and adjusted in accordance with holy Scripture and ecumenical tradition. It is not a case of trivial relativism that undermines the ethical foundation of church and society. But it is also not about an unmerciful, mind-numbing dogmatism, which swears by the letter, prevents thorough renewal of the church’s life and teaching, and obstructs serious progress in ecumenism. It is certainly not the case of me personally wanting to be right. The well-being of the church and of ecumenism is at stake.

“I am very well aware of the fact that my appeal to you, who ‘lives among wolves,’ as a good Vatican connoisseur recently remarked, may possibly not be opportune. In your Christmas address of Dec. 21, 2015, however, confronted with curial ailments and even scandals, you confirmed your will for reform: ‘It seems necessary to state what has been — and ever shall be — the object of sincere reflection and decisive provisions. The reform will move forward with determination, clarity and firm resolve, since Ecclesia semper reformanda.’

“I would not like to raise the hopes of many in our church unrealistically. The question of infallibility cannot be solved overnight in our church. Fortunately, you (Pope Francis) are almost 10 years younger than I am and will hopefully survive me. You will, moreover, surely understand that as a theologian at the end of his days, buoyed by deep affection for you and your pastoral work, I wanted to convey this request to you in time for a free and serious discussion of infallibility that is well-substantiated in the volume at hand: non in destructionem, sed in aedificationem ecclesiae, ‘not in order to destroy but to build up the church.’ For me personally, this would be the fulfillment of a hope I have never given up.”

HANS KUNG INCLUDED THE FOLLOWING IN HIS LETTER TO FRANCIS:

It is hardly conceivable that Pope Francis would strive to define papal infallibility as Pius IX did with all the means at hand, whether good or less good, in the 19th century. It is also inconceivable that Francis would be interested in infallibly defining Marian dogmas as Pius XII did. It would, however, be far easier to imagine Pope Francis smilingly telling students, “Io non sono infallibile” — “I am not infallible” — as Pope John XXIII did in his time. When he saw how surprised the students were, John added, “I am only infallible when I speak ex cathedra, but that is something I will never do.”

I became acquainted with the subject very early in my life. Here are a few important historical dates as I personally experienced them and have faithfully documented in Volume 5 of my complete works:

1950: On Nov. 1, facing huge crowds in St. Peter’s Square and supported by numerous high church and political dignitaries, Pope Pius XII definitively proclaimed the Assumption of Mary as a dogma. “The immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.” I was there in St. Peter’s Square at the time and must admit that I enthusiastically hailed the pope’s declaration.

That was the first infallible ex cathedra proclamation by the church’s senior shepherd and highest teaching authority, who had invoked the special support of the Holy Spirit, all according to the definition of papal infallibility laid down at the First Vatican Council of 1870. And it was to remain the last ex cathedra proclamation to date, as even John Paul II, who restored papal centralism and was always happy to seek publicity, did not dare to play to the gallery by proclaiming a new dogma. As it was, the 1950 dogma proclamation had been made despite protests from the Protestant and Orthodox churches and from many Catholics, who simply could not find any evidence in the Bible for this “truth of faith revealed by God.”

I remember German theology students, who were our guests in the Collegium Germanicum (German College) in Rome, discussing the problems they had with the dogma in the refectory at the time. Only a few weeks previously, an article by the then leading Germanpatrologist, Professor Berthold Althaner, a highly regarded Catholic specialist in the theology of the Church Fathers, had been published in which Althaner, listing many examples, had shown that this dogma had did not even have a historical basis in the first centuries of the early church. It goes back to a legend in an apocryphal writing from the fifth century that is brimful of miracles.

We seminarians at the German College at the time thought that the students’ “rationalist” university teachers had kept the Pontifical Gregorian University’s general perception regarding this dogma from them. The general perception at the Gregorian was that the Assumption dogma had “developed” slowly and, as it were, “organically” in the course of dogma history, but that it was already ascertained in Bible passages such as “Hail (Mary) full of grace (blessed art thou),” “the Lord is with you” (Luke 1:28), and although not “explicitly” expressed, it was nevertheless “implicitly” incorporated.

1958: Pius XII’s death marked the end of a century of excessive Marian cults by the Pius popes that had begun with the definition of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception in 1854. Pius XII’s successor, JohnXXIII, was disinclined toward new dogmas. At the Second Vatican Council, in a crucial vote, the majority of the council fathers rejected a special Marian decree and in fact cautioned against exaggerated Marian piety.

1965: Chapter III of the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church is devoted to the hierarchy but, oddly enough, Paragraph 25, which is on infallibility, in no way actually goes into it. What is all the more surprising is that in actual fact the Second Vatican Council took a fatal step. Without giving reasons, it expressly extended infallibility, which was confined to the pope alone at the First Vatican Council, to the episcopacy. The council attributed infallibility not only to the assembled episcopacy at an ecumenical council (magisterium extraordinarium), but from then on also to the world episcopacy (magisterium ordinarium), that is, to bishops all over the world if they were agreed and decreed that a church teaching on faith or morals should permanently become mandatory.

1968: the year the encyclical Humanae Vitae on birth control was published. That the encyclical was released on July 25 of all times, which was not only during the summer holidays but, on top of that, in the middle of the Czechoslovak people’s fight for freedom, is generally interpreted as Roman tactics so that there would be less opposition to it. Perhaps, however, it was quite simply because work on this sensitive document had only just been finished. Whatever the reason for the timing, the encyclical hit the world “like a bomb.” The pope had obviously greatly underestimated the resistance to this teaching. Isolated as he was in the Vatican, he had not envisaged that the world public would react quite so negatively.

The encyclical Humanae Vitae, which not only forbade as grave sins the pill and all mechanical means of contraception but also the withdrawal method to avoid pregnancy, was universally regarded as an incredible challenge. Invoking the infallibility of papal, respectively episcopal teaching, the pope pitted himself against the entire civilized world. This alarmed me as a Catholic theologian. I had by then been professor of theology at the Catholic theological faculty of Tübingen University for eight years. Of course, formal protests and substantive objections were important, but had the time not now come to examine this claim to the infallibility of papal teaching in principle? I was convinced that theology — or, to be more precise, critical fundamental theological research — was called for. In 1970, I put the subject up for discussion in my book Infallible?: An Inquiry. I could not have foreseen at the time that this book and with it the problem of infallibility would crucially affect my personal destiny and would present theology and the church with key challenges. In the 1970s, my life and my work were more than ever intertwined with theology and the church.

1979-80: the withdrawal of my license to teach. In Volume 2 of my memoirs, Disputed Truth, I have described in detail how this was a secret campaign carried out with military precision, which has proved to be theologically unfounded and politically counterproductive. At the time, the debate about the withdrawal of my missio canonica and infallibility continued for a long time. It proved impossible to harm my standing with believers, however, and as I had prophesied, the controversies regarding large-scale church reform have not ceased. On the contrary, during the pontificates of John Paul II and Benedict XVI they increased on a massive scale. That was when I went into the necessity of promoting understanding between the different denominations, of mutual recognition of church offices and celebrating the Lord’s Supper, the question of divorce, of women’s ordination, mandatory celibacy and the catastrophic lack of priests, but above all of the leadership of the Catholic church. My question was: “Where are you leading this church of ours?”

These questions are as relevant today as they were then. The decisive reason for this incapacity for reform at all levels is still the doctrine of infallibility of church teaching, which has bequeathed a long winter on our Catholic church. Like John XXIII, Francis is doing his utmost to blow fresh wind into the church today and is meeting with massive opposition as at the last episcopal synod in October 2015. But, make no mistake, without a constructive “re-vision” of the infallibility dogma, real renewal will hardly be possible.

What is all the more astonishing is that the discussion (of infallibility) has disappeared from the scene. Many Catholic theologians have no longer critically examined the infallibility ideology for fear of ominous sanctions as in my case, and the hierarchy tries as far as possible to avoid the subject, which is unpopular in the church and in society. When he was prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Joseph Ratzinger only expressly referred to it very few times. Despite the fact that it was left unsaid, the taboo of infallibility has blocked all reforms since the Second Vatican Council that would have required revising previous dogmatic definitions. That not only applies to the encyclical Humanae Vitae against contraception, but also to the sacraments and monopolized “authentic” church teaching, to the relationship between the ordained priesthood and the priesthood of all the faithful. And it applies likewise to a synodal church structure and the claim to absolute papal power, the relationship to other denominations and religions, and to the secular world in general. That is why the following question is more urgent than ever: Where is the church — which is still fixated on the infallibility dogma — heading at the beginning of the third millennium? The anti-modernist epoch that rang in the First Vatican Council has ended.

2016: I am in my 88th year and I may say that I have spared no effort to collect the relevant texts, order them factually and chronologically according to the various phases of the altercation and elucidate them by putting them in a biographical context for Volume 5 of my complete works. With this book in my hand, I would now like to repeat an appeal to the pope that I repeatedly made in vain several times during the decade long theological and church-political altercation. I beg of Pope Francis — who has always replied to me in a brotherly manner:

“Receive this comprehensive documentation and allow a free, unprejudiced and open-ended discussion in our church of the all the unresolved and suppressed questions connected with the infallibility dogma. In this way, the problematic Vatican heritage of the past 150 years could be come to terms with honestly and adjusted in accordance with holy Scripture and ecumenical tradition. It is not a case of trivial relativism that undermines the ethical foundation of church and society. But it is also not about an unmerciful, mind-numbing dogmatism, which swears by the letter, prevents thorough renewal of the church’s life and teaching, and obstructs serious progress in ecumenism. It is certainly not the case of me personally wanting to be right. The well-being of the church and of ecumenism is at stake.

PAT SAYS:

FATHER HANS KUNG has a brilliant mind and he is one of the greatest theologians of the 20th and 21st centuries.

He is of course, controversial - because he has talked about things that many do not like to talk about and because he believes EVERYTHING is up for discussion.

Theologians are not infallible and I am quite sure Kung knows he is not infallible either.

One of the duties of the theologian is to PUSH THE BOUNDARIES OF FAITH and by doing so to bring us all to a greater understanding of God.

It is NOT the theologian's duty to pontificate or to declare anything to be dogmatically true.

But it is his duty - his vocation - to make us all THINK.

Defining doctrine is the job of THE CHURCH - that is the WHOLE PEOPLE OF GOD - coming to believe something to be true and to have it declared true by the MAGISTERIUM - that part of the Church that TEACHES what is "of faith".

However, the "magisterium" - the bishops and the pope - have often been guilty of arrogance and of usurping the VOICE OF ALL and have proclaimed things that are not vital to the faith and that are not necessarily universally believed.

This is the TAIL WAGGING THE DOG.

The radical theologian - such as Kung - reminds the TAIL that it is NOT THE DOG and asks that the dog wag the tail.

For this reason, there has often been a clash between the theologian and the hierarchy - as happened in the Kung case.

Kung has suffered a GREAT INJUSTICE by being sidelined by men who are like intellectual mice beside the Kung Lion.

There should be freedom of speech everywhere but especially in the CHURCH OF CHRIST.

THE TRUTH is primary GOD HIMSELF - and we move towards the truth when all God's children have a voice.

History will judge Kung to have been a GREAT THEOLOGIAN and those who opposed him and attacked him to be intellectual mice!

BISHOP WILLIAM PHILBIN

BORN 26.1.1907 - DIED 22.8.1991

BISHOP OF DOWN AND CONNOR 1962 - 1982

William Philbin was a difficult man to understand - extremely shy and reclusive, an intellectual and a man who was out of his depth when he was catapulted into Down and Connor in 1962.

He had entered Maynooth at the age of 17 or the Diocese of Achonry and was ordained on June 21st, 1931.

He spent most of his life as the Professor of Dogmatic Theology at Maynooth. 

On the 22nd December 1953, Pope Pius X11 appointed him Bishop of Clonfert and he attended all 4 sessions of the Second Vatican Council.

In 1962 Pope John XX111 appointed him Bishop of Down and Connor. 

There is an apocryphal story of how he was moved from Clonfert to Belfast. John XX111's priest secretary, Monsignor Thomas Ryan (later Bishop of Clonfert) recommended Philbin to the pope to give the Vatican retreat. John XX111 was impressed and one day pointed to Philbin and said - "There is the new bishop of Down and Connor". 

Clonfert was a small rural diocese with a small number of parishes and it would have suited an intellectual bishop who liked to spend his days in study.

Down and Connor was a large diocese - unlike any Irish diocese - and from The Troubles in the late 1960's was a very troubled diocese.

Poor Philbin was lost - thrown in at the deep end. 

He made the fatal mistake of going up the Falls Road with a British Army general on the back of a British Army lorry to tell people to take down the barricades. The people fired besn tins and other missiles at the bishop and general.

Poor Philbin retreated into the seclusion of his Lisbreen Palace - now known as Chateau Noel.

Philbin read, studied and translated ancient manuscripts while Belfast burned.

His right-hand man - Monsignor Paddy Mullaly ran the diocese with an iron fist and was above all else feared by priests.

Monsignor Mullaly liked to wear the purple socks of a monsignor and like his gin and tonics. 

At one clergy dinner some senior clergy - with a dram taken - were slagging Mullaly over his purple socks and one of them called him a bastard.

Mullaly replied to the bastard accusation by saying: "Yes, I am a bastard. And what's more, I am a vindictive bastard". That particular cleric's career had come to an abrupt halt!

Incidentally, Mullaly was the man who took me into Down and Connor and we always had a good relationship.

Bishop Philbin was also a beekeeper. He kept beehives at Lisbreen.

ENTER ZOMBIE:

When in St Peter's I had a regular punk rock teenage caller nicknamed "Zombie".

One day Zombie was standing ringing the doorbell looking for me when Philbin's car arrived for Confirmations. The chauffeur accidentally mounted the footpath and the car hit Zombie on the legs. Philbin jumped out of the car and screamed at Zombie for being in his way. Zombie tried to say: "Fa'r I was on the path. your car hit me". Philbin was having none of it and continued to scream at Zombie. In the end, Zombie shouted: "Would ye f... off Farr".

You would have thought that Philbin had been hit on the head by a hammer. When I got to the door poor Philbin grabbed my arm and shaking said: "Dear Father Buckley. Get me a glass of water quickly. Someone has just used an obscenity to me". When Philbin had taken his water I said to him: "My Lord, if I had a pound for every time I was told to do that since you sent me here I would be living in a villa in Marbella" :-)

ZOMBIE/PHILBIN RECONCILIATION:

One Sunday after that incident I was due to pick up Philbin at Lisbreen and drive him to an adult Confirmation ceremony in Andersonstown. As I was leaving the house Zombie arrived and as he was feeling a bit under the weather, I brought him in the car to pick Philbin up.

I put Zombie in the rear seat so that Philbin could sit in the front. But Philbin climbed into the rear with Zombie and a great conversation ensued.

On the way back to Lisbreen Zombie and Philbin continued their impassioned conversation and when we arrived at Lisbreen Philbin insisted on bringing Zombie in to see his beehives. 

While I waited for 2 hours Philbin and Zombie had a great discussion on the ancient art of apiculture :-)  All was forgiven :-)

MY OTHER EXPERIENCES OF PHILBIN:

1. Being asked by him to sit by his side at clergy dinners in Lisbreen.

2. Being begged by him to do all I could to keep the youth of the Falls Road out of the grip of the IRA.

3. Being reprimanded by him for using the term "we ask God to be kind" during the Prayers of the Faithful I wrote for the diocesan requiem Mass for Popes Paul V1 and John Paul 1.

4. Being reprimanded by him for daring to send him a Christmas card. He did not like priests sending him Christmas cards?

5. Watching in stunned silence as the 20+ stone Father Denis Newberry threw himself on Philbin's antique chaise Longue in Lisbreen shattering one of its legs and Philbin on the floor examining it !!! 

When I look back now and think of Philbin I feel a little sad and melancholic.

He was a shy man - an intellectual - who was never suited to be a bishop. He did not ask to be a bishop. He had it thrust on him.

He must have been very lonely and isolated in Lisbreen - feeling rejected and misunderstood.

In Lisbreen he wrote poems. 

Here is one of his poems:

BELFAST CHRISTMAS 

1975

In earth's elemental war of death and life

Rampage of winter famine microbe flood

By stages effortfully are stemmed, withstood.

Not so our making's Minotaur, inborn strife:

Forgotten it's infancy of sling and knife,

Adult now, adept of atom and lightening, shod

With space-shoes, making earth inert sod

Should men stay savage - doom forboding's rife,

Our part to make killing customary, cheap?

A bar's clientele mangles to charnel heap;

Murder across peace-net volleys;  beside Christmas cards

Mails carry instruments of unkind regards;

Death strikes indifferent from vehicle that bombards

At random, from footsteps, that to quiet doors creep.

AND PAT SAYS:

I think I preferred William Philbin's Lisbreen to the Lisbreen of Daly, Walsh or Treanor!

Better, I think, the incense of study and struggle for meaning than the testosterone of the ego, the sadist or the hard of heart!

THE MINISTRY THAT GOT ME INTO TROUBLE

WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT BISHOPS AND PRIESTS, THEIR SALARIES AND EXPENSES ETC.

TODAY I WANT TO WRITE ABOUT THE MINISTRY THAT "MARKED MY CARDS" IN THE EYES OF THE CLERICAL CLUB AND THE BISHOP.

It was 1978. Having grown up in Dublin I suddenly found myself in August of that year a curate in St Peter's Cathedral in Belfast - surrounded by the DIVIS FLATS (locally called the Devil's Flats).

I was living in the big old presbytery in the middle of all the mayhem in which life was more Downton Abbey than Divis Flats. Our clerical lives were, from the point of view of accommodation, food etc, at least upper middle class.

All around us, there was political mayhem, poverty, prescription drug abuse, marriage breakdown - not to mention the bombs and the bullets - the Brits and the Provos, the Stickies (official IRA), the INLA. 

Once I stepped out of the presbytery door I was immediately hit with the stench of all the uncollected refuse and the mind-blowing graffiti. When I went out at night the rats clung to the bottom of my trousers and had to be kicked off. Belfast City Hall told me that they could not kill all the rats - just keep them at an acceptable level!

For the first year, I said my Masses, heard my Confessions, communicated the sick, celebrated weddings and funerals and chaplained the schools. 

But, a voice inside my head kept saying: YOU ARE NOT DOING ENOUGH!

I had to do SOMETHING about the AIR OF HOPELESSNESS in which my people were drowning.

Then an inspiration....................................

1. THE HOUSING ISSUES:

I had already set up thge DIVIS RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION. I was the chairman as I could not be got at by the paramilitaries as ordinary folk could.

One Monday morning I donned a navy blue overalls and grabbed a yard brush and went out onto the street facing the presbytery and started brushing up the debris from the road.

An old lady ran down and remonstrated with me: "You cant do that Fa'r. Your hands are anointed".

By the end of the week, there were 500 people of all ages brushing the streets with me. The Housing Executive delivered hundreds of brushes and shovels to us free of charge. They also sent in hundreds of empty skips and removed them when we had them filled. Within a very short time, the place was as clean as the Malone Road :-)

Then we turned our eyes to the ugly graffiti - many of them political. Our mothers and grannies had a word with their "involved" husbands and sons and we painted over every bit of graffiti in the place. 

Each day I made a trip to the Housing Executive depot on the Protestant Shankill Road to collect all the paint, brushes and white spirit we needed. The men up there were very gracious to me. 

Not only was Divis Flats clean - the whole place now had a bright, fresh appearance of grey and magnolia.

And then I thought - "Now that the work is done - let us have a party" - and we had a week-long Divis Festival with volunteer bands coming with their own equipment. Others provided sandwiches and cake and tea and coffee.

I even arranged with the RUC Commander - Chief Superintendent Jimmy Crutchley - to keep the hated police and army out of the area for a week - on the guarantee that if anything happened I would alert them. Nothing did happen.

Of course, the eventual plan for Divis Flats had to be demolition and rehousing in decent homes. But in the meantime - and while we campaigned for that - we had to make the place half decent and livable in. 

The cleanup, painting, and festival dispelled the dark cloud of hopelessness that had been engulfing the whole parish.

One funny thing happened at the end of the cleanup. An engineer from Northern Ireland Electricity came into the Flats to fix a reported fault and not recognizing the place he left - thinking he was not in Divis :-)

A very good now deceased friend of mine, Father Michael Keane, used to always say: "When you go to a new parish observe things there for a while and find out what needs that place has. Then work with the people to address those needs".

Without realizing it that is what had happened to me in the Devil's Flats. 

Of course, a priest's role is primarily spiritual. 

But as been well said elsewhere you cannot talk to a hungry man about God. First of all, you feed him. Then you teach him how to fish. And then you can talk to him about God.

We even got awards for how Clean Divis was :-)



2. THE JOY RIDING ISSUE:

The other big social nightmare at the time was JOYRIDING - youngsters stealing cars and driving them around our parish at dangerous speeds and then burning out the cars.

This led to mayhem, sleeplessness, accidents, the area littered with burnst out cars and even death!

Again I gor the mothers and grannies to join me and we went out on the streets and "stole" the cars back off the joyriders.

I then drove the stolen cars back to the police station.

In the first year we saved 200 cars.

We also started up a late night youth club for the joyriders - 9 0m to 3 am - to keep them busy.

It worked.

That was the second big social issue in the parish under control.


THE BACKLASH:

Everybody applauded all our work - the newspapers, the police, youith groups etc etc.

But there was one group was not happy - me fellow clergy in the presbytery - especially the two most senior.

They resented our work for a number of reasons:

1. They thought (wrongly) that I was trying to show them up!

2. They resented all the publicity we were getting. None of the publicity had been sought. Good stories in The Troubles in Belfast of the early 80's were bound to get noticed.

3. They were being disturbed in the presbytery by people ringing the doorbell for me at all hours of the day and night.

I offered to put a lit up designated bell for myself on the door and the offer was refused.

I offered to do all the night duty 7 nights a week that was refused.

I offered the position of chairman of the resident's association to the PP. He replied: "I'm not going to be a f...... general in Buckley's f...... private army.


ARRIVE CAHAL DALY.

Cahal Daly became bishop of D&C in 1982.

I was reported to him for being disobedient, a troublemaker, a socialist etc.

He too did not like any publicity that did not involve him.

I would have been happy for him to be the chairman of his cathedral residents association - but - of course, I would not imagine CD out on the street with a brush and shovel.

So I was sent off to rural Kilkeel as a punishment.

And so began my troubles with CD which concluded with me being asked to leave the diocese in October 1985.


BY THE WAY: My salary during my time in Divis was my keep and £70 a month.

I was delighted to work a 16/18 day 7 days a week.

I took very few holidays during those years.

But I LOVED every minute of what I did.


We recently asked on the Blog what a priest should be like. 

I think that he should be a person who cares about and is involved with all the needs of his people - spiritual, social, physical etc.

BISHOPS SALARIES AND EXPENSES

A RECENT "DEFENDED OF THE FAITH" ON THIS BLOG  - DEFENDING CHURCH FINANCES - CLAIMED THAT ALL PARISHES AND DIOCESES NOW PUBLISH A FULL SET OF ACCOUNTS.

If that is the case why is the salaries and expenses of priests and bishops in every diocese easily available in the public forum?

In 1983 when Cahal Daly got himself two auxiliary bishops - Paddy Walsh and Tony Farquhar - Cahal told us then priests that he would require £120,000 per annum for the running of the three bishops offices.

This morning I checked with the Bank of England and discovered that £120,000 in 1983 is now worth about £370,000.

Does that mean that if three bishops cost £370,000 a year - one bishop costs £123,000 a year?

If so that would place the salary and expenses of a bishop at circa  £ 2,365 or £ 9,461 a month?

Not bad for a man who does not have to support a wife or a family?

In a fairly recent survey, THE IRISH CATHOLIC said that the priests of Clogher diocese received an average wage of Euros 33,960 ( £ 30,127) and priests in Derry received Euros 11,664 (£ 10,347).

It also said that only two dioceses refused to provide them with figures - the Archdiocese of Cashel and Emly and the Diocese of Meath - two of the wealthiest dioceses in the country.

Recent contributors to this Blog have put priests' salaries at between £19,000 and £ 25,000 with additional expenses.

So, how much does an Irish bishop earn?

Some priests tell me that the bishop has a basic wage of between £40,000 and £50,000.

And top of this the bishop generally has a nice "palace" free of charge.

Does the bishop have to pay for his food and his housekeeper in the palace?

Presumably, the diocese pays for the rates, the insurance, the telephone, the stationery, the electricity and the heating oil.

Who pays for the bishop's car and his chauffeur, if he has one?

Who pays for the bishop's travels?

For instance who pays for Diarmuid Martin's regular trips to Rome and his lecture trips around the world?

And who pays for Noel Treanor's regular trips to all parts of the European continent?

And who paid the bill when Phonsie, Nulty, Leahy and Treanor went on that recent trip with Trocaire to Africa? Did it come out of the Trocaire boxes?

What good did the trip of these 4 bishops do for the people of Zimbabwe? How are they better off for the visit?

Could the money for that trip have been used for more projects in Zimbabwe?

And what of Treanor's Palace in Belfast - "Chateau Noel"? He did tell us that the renovation was paid for by three "donors" - the NI Department of the Environment - £303,000 and the rest by two unnamed donors.  Who were they - the SDLP? The Sisters of Nazareth? The Ancient Order of Hibernians? Liam Neeson from Ballymena? 

NOEL TREANOR'S HOUSE AFTER RENOVATION

And was it necessary to have internal door handles at £250 a whack and wallpaper at £100 a roll?

NOEL TREANOR'S RENOVATED SECURITY GATES

In this day and age should it not be possible for us to go on to Google and look at the annual accounts of any diocese or parish - or at least go to offices of Companies House or the Charity Commissioner and look it all up?

Nobody reasonable expects any priest or bishop to live in hardship. Far from it. as the Bible says: "The labourer is worthy of his hire".

But with such large sums of monies involved should there not be total transparency in 2017 - especially when the monies come from public donations etc?

WHAT IS A GOOD PRIEST

THIS BLOG CARRIES A LOT OF CRITICISM ABOUT PRIESTS THAT DO NOT MEASURE UP.

WE DO THEREFORE NEED TO REALISE THAT THERE ARE MANY GOOD PRIESTS OUT THERE.

WHAT IS A "GOOD PRIEST"/

A good priest is a priest who has a relationship with God and who nourishes that relationship with Mass, prayer, scripture reading and spiritual reading.

A good priest is a priest who sees himself as the friend and brother of everyone in his parish - especially those in most need.

A good priest is NOT a dictator in his parish but one who sees himself as the friend and facilitator of ALL his parishioners and who involves them in all parish decisions - great and small.

A good priest is a priest whose house has an OPEN DOOR POLICY and who is available to his parishioners 24/7 - allowing of course for a day off and his own social life.

A good priest does not have "SURGERY HOURS".

A good priest is a priest who tries to visit all the homes and families in his parish and not only the homes of the wealthy upper middle and upper classes.

A good priest is a priest who is NOT a dictator in his parish schools and who allows the principals and teachers full freedom - and who does appoint clerical cronies to teacher posts.

A good priest is not ALWAYS talking about, and asking for, money from the pulpit.

A good priest gets involved in the various activities in his area/parish as an individual and does not always have to be the chairman of everything.

A good priest is a supporter of widespread involvement of lay men and women in every aspect of parish life.

A good priest is someone who answers his doorbell or telephone when he is at home.

A good priest is not an arrogant bully at his door when someone calls.

A good priest is a priest who does not talk to callers on his doorstep but invited them inside for the business being conducted.

A good priest is a priest who takes a day or so off every week and is not missing from his parish for 3, 4, 5, 6 days a week.

I would be interested to learn what Blog readers think a good priest Is???

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

FALSE GRINDR PROFILE

At present, there is a FALSE PROFILE on GRINDR that claims to be my profile. I do not know who has placed it there. I did NOT.

I have notified Grindr and the PSNI who tell me that the profile would be regarded in law as FALSE REPRESENTATION.

I suspect it has been placed there by some priest. seminarian or other, who is not happy about this Blog publishing material on Grindr vis a vie Maynooth and parish clergy etc.

I have passed screenshots of that profile to the police.

I have nothing against Grindr or indeed about the many thousands of gay men who use it - that is men who are privately/secretly being themselves are not living double lives as clergy of the RC Church who have taken a public promise/vow of chastity/celibacy.

While the profile in question does not suggest I am on Grindr looking for sex it is a false profile and carries a photograph of me that is freely available on the Internet/Google Images.

It says that I am a chaplain to the gay community - which is inaccurate - although I have and do regularly minister to members of that community - but my ministry is NOT confined to any gender/orientation.

I am not upset about the false profile. I just don't think that anyone has the right to publish false profiles.

I would ask the person who put it there to remove it. It can be traced to your IP address.

-------------------------------------------------------------

The Neglected History of Women in the Early Church

A number of prominent leaders, scholars, and benefactors of the early church were women and—despite neglect by many modern historians—the diligent researcher can still uncover a rich history.

CATHERINE KROEGER

One of the best-kept secrets in Christianity is the enormous role that women played in the early church.

Though they leave much unsaid, still, both Christian and secular writers of the time attest many times to the significant involvement of women in the early growth of Christianity.

Celsus, a 2nd-century detractor of the faith, once taunted that the church attracted only “the silly and the mean and the stupid, with women and children.” His contemporary, Bishop Cyprian of Carthage, acknowledged in his Testimonia that “Christian maidens were very numerous” and that it was difficult to find Christian husbands for all of them. These comments give us a picture of a church disproportionately populated by women.

Why? One reason might have been the practice of exposing unwanted female infants—abandoning them to certain death. Christians, of course, repudiated this practice, and thus had more living females.

Also, in the upper echelons of society, women often converted to Christianity while their male relatives

remained pagans, lest they lose their senatorial status. This too contributed to the inordinate number of women in the church, particularly upper-class women. Callistus, bishop of Rome c. 220, attempted to resolve the marriage problem by giving women of the senatorial class an ecclesiastical sanction to marry slaves or freedmen—even though Roman law prohibited this.

These high-born Christian women seized upon the study of the Bible and of Hebrew and Greek. The circle of Roman women who studied with Jerome in the late 300s showed such scholarship that he thought nothing of referring some church elders to Marcella for the resolution of a hermeneutical problem. By the early 400s, Augustine could declare that “any old Christian woman” was better educated in spiritual matters than many a philosopher.

The women’s spiritual zeal exploded into social service. Fabiola founded the first Christian hospital in Europe. Many other church women encountered severe opposition from their families for spending their wealth so generously in helping the poor. Such selfless ministry became a trademark of Christian women.

In a letter to his wife, Tertullian gives us a glimpse into some of the ministries of church women in his time. He charges her, in case of his own death, to not marry a pagan.

“Who would be willing to let his wife go through one street after another to other men’s houses, and indeed to the poorer cottages, in order to visit the brethren? Who would like to see her being taken from his side by some duty of attending a nocturnal gathering? At Easter time who will quietly tolerate her absence all the night? Who will unsuspiciously let her go to the Lord’s Supper, that feast upon which they heap such calumnies? Who will let her creep into jail to kiss the martyr’s chains? Or bring water for the saints’ feet?”

Women As Witnesses of Jesus

It is no surprise that women were active in the early church. From the very start—the birth, ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus—women were significantly involved. In fact, women were the major witnesses of his crucifixion and resurrection. Matthew, Mark and Luke all record that a significant group of women had followed Jesus in his Galilean ministry, and that they were present at his execution—when the male disciples were conspicuously absent.

All three describe the women’s presence at Jesus’ burial. Luke declares that the women who had followed Jesus from Galilee still followed along as Christ was carried to the tomb. Mark details the care with which Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses noted where He was laid, while Matthew tells how they kept watch over the sepulchre after the men had left. John tells of the group immediately beneath the cross, three women and one man. John alone preserves the garden interview between Mary Magdalene and the Risen Christ.

The proclamation of the astounding Easter event was entrusted to these women. The angel reminded them that they had already been instructed by Jesus about His death, burial and resurrection. The women remembered and hurried off to tell the men. Their witness remains an integral part of the gospel to this day. The early church considered Mary Magdalene an “apostle to the apostles,” and Luke relied heavily on the testimony of women as he wrote both Luke and Acts.

The involvement of women continued in the first few decades of the church, attested by both biblical and extra-biblical sources. A number of women served as leaders of the house churches that sprang up in the cities of the Roman Empire—the list includes Priscilla, Chloe, Lydia, Apphia, Nympha, the mother of John Mark, and possibly the “elect lady” of John’s second epistle.

In the 2nd century, Clement of Alexandria wrote that the apostles were accompanied on their missionary journeys by women who were not marriage partners, but colleagues, “that they might be their fellow-ministers in dealing with housewives. It was through them that the Lord’s teaching penetrated also the women’s quarters without any scandal being aroused. We also know the directions about women deacons which are given by the noble Paul in his letter to Timothy.”

Was that perhaps the role of Junia? She was mentioned by Paul in Romans 16 as “of note among the apostles.” Some have debated the meaning of this verse, but early tradition holds that Junia was a woman and was considered an apostle. John Chrysostom wrote: “Indeed, to be an apostle at all is a great thing; but to be even amongst those of note; just consider what a great encomium that is … Oh, how great is the devotion of this woman, that she should even be counted worthy of the appellation of apostle.”

Until the Middle Ages, the identity of Junia as a female apostle was unquestioned. Later translators attempted to change the gender by changing the name to the masculine Junias. But such a name is unknown in antiquity; and there is absolutely no literary, epigraphical or papyrological evidence for it.

Paul also mentions Phoebe in Romans 16, “a deacon of the church at Cenchreae.” He calls her a prostatis or overseer. This term in its masculine form, prostates, was used later by the Apostolic Fathers to designate the one presiding over the Eucharist. And Paul uses the same verb, the passive of ginomai (to be or become), as he uses in Colossians 1:23: “I was made a minister.” In the passive, the verb sometimes indicated ordination or appointment to an office. Thus one might legitimately translate Paul’s statement about Phoebe: “For she has been appointed, actually by my own action, an officer presiding over many.” The church in Rome is asked to welcome her and assist her in the church’s business.

The four daughters of Philip appear in Acts 21:9 as prophetesses. Eusebius viewed these daughters as “belonging to the first stage of apostolic succession.”

Another prophetess attested to by extra-biblical tradition is Ammia, who prophesied in Philadelphia during New Testament times, and was received with reverence throughout Asia Minor. The first preserved mention of her dates to about 160 A.D.

2nd-Century Church Women

Just as the letters of Paul abound in references to his female associates in ministry, the Apostolic Fathers also mention women as stalwarts in the faith. Twice Ignatius sent greetings to Alce, whom he calls especially dear to him. He also greeted Tavia and her household; perhaps she was another house-church leader.

Polycarp mentioned the sister of Crescens, who deserved special commendation when she and her brother arrived in Philippi to deliver the letter. The Shepherd of Hermas, written about 148 A.D., gives instructions that two copies should be made of the work and one given to Grapte, “who shall exhort the widows and orphans.” The other copy was to be given to Bishop Clement to share with the elders. It appears that Grapte and Clement represented the female and male leaders respectively.

But Christians were not the only ones prompted to write about the female followers of Jesus. About 112 A.D., the Roman governor Pliny the Younger detailed his efforts to cope with the nascent church in Bithynia. He had found it necessary to interrogate the leaders, two slave women called ministrae, or deacons. These women apparently followed in the tradition of Phoebe.

Spurious Works

Certain female leaders are described as fully historic personages, while others are embedded in legend. Catherine of Alexandria, for instance, reportedly lived in the 2nd century, though the earliest reference to her is in an 8th-century work. The patron saint of scholars and philosophers, she allegedly debated 50 philosophers and won them all to Christ. As a result, she was condemned to death and ultimately perished on the wheel (hence the name of the “Catherine wheel,” a rotating firework).

Her story may have been drawn from that of Hypatia, the noted pagan philosopher also of Alexandria, also of the 2nd century. Hypatia did in fact meet her death at the hands of an enraged Christian mob, and her historicity is beyond doubt. The Catherine story may well be drawn from that of Hypatia, but it demonstrates a willingness in the church to project a woman as a spiritual and intellectual leader.

Spurious works, even if their authorship is in doubt, can still have value in demonstrating certain attitudes. Two epistles erroneously attributed to Ignatius preserve an appeal from Mary of Cassobelae that three members of the clergy, Maris, Eulogius and Sobelus, be appointed to serve in her community so that it might not be devoid of those fit to preside over the Word of God. She begs Ignatius to not deny her request simply because the three are young and two of them newly ordained. Rather, she argues from the Scriptures that youth is no deterrent to a significant ministry for God. Pseudo-Ignatius replies: “Thy intelligence invites us, as by a word of command, to participate in those divine draughts which gush forth so abundantly in thy soul … Thy numerous quotations of Scripture passages exceedingly delighted me, which, when I had read, I had no longer a single doubtful thought respecting the matter… Thou art perfect in every good work and word, and able also to exhort others in Christ.”

He promises to comply with her wishes, citing the fame which had accrued to her earnest dedication to Christ at the time of her visit to Rome during the bishopric of Linus (beginning of the 2nd century). The letter is probably no earlier than the 4th century, but it demonstrates an attitude that was able to gain currency in the early church. A woman of outstanding spiritual gifts purportedly gives direction in the appointment of clergy, and is applauded for the inspiration she affords. The personages may be fictitious, but the appreciation of feminine spirituality is real.

The Legend of St. Thecla

The legend of St. Thecla has endeared itself to modern women as well as to their earlier counterparts. It is the bestknown of the numerous apocryphal stories of early Christian heroines. According to the 3rd- century text of The Acts of Paul, Thecla, a noblewoman, was converted while listening to the preaching of the apostle. Forsaking her old life, she followed Paul and endured persecution, tribulation and great peril. The story resembles the ancient pagan romances in the repetition of hair’s-breadth escapes, the fortitude and nobility displayed by both hero and heroine, and the happy ending. It is, however, a Christianized romance, as are several other of the apocryphal Acts and The Recognitions of Peter.

Thecla appears as a truly heroic character who endures all manner of suffering for the sake of Christ. After her itineration through Asia Minor with the Apostle Paul, she settles near Seleucia, where she teaches, preaches, heals and baptizes. Tertullian, incensed that Montanist women used her as a model, declared that a deacon had confessed that he fabricated the story “for love of Paul.” William M. Ramsay maintained that The Acts of Paul contained an authentic 1stcentury account, which had been outrageously embellished by the 3rd-century deacon. Dennis McDonald has pointed out that, though the story is almost surely fictitious, this does not obviate the existence of an actual female leader of that name.

Both Gregory of Nazianzus and Basil of Caesarea spoke of Thecla as a historical figure. Writing in the 300s, they described her teaching center and hospital near Seleucia. The pilgrim Egeria visited this facility in 399 A.D., and also described its monasteries, convents and assembly buildings, along with the teaching and healing ministries that went on there. The German team that excavated the center in 1908 found the apse still standing above the ground, with the main basilica’s outlines covering a space equal to that of a football field. The excavators also found numerous cisterns, apparently for washing the sick, two other churches, and many fine mosaics. The center apparently was in active use for at least 1,000 years, indicating the presence in Asia Minor of an extremely strong female leader.

Women in Consecrated Orders

Beside the outstanding achievements of individual women stood the ministry of consecrated women in specialized orders. These orders included ecclesial widows, virgins, presbyteresses and deaconesses. Sometimes such women were formally ordained and sat with the rest of the clergy in front of the congregation.

Mary McKenna suggests that the disadvantaged women who accompanied Jesus in his Galilean ministry (Luke 8:23) formed the beginning of the order of widows. The Greek term cheira might refer to any woman who found herself in difficult circumstances. Tertullian complained of a virgin who was admitted to the order of widows at the age of 19! These widows were supported by the gifts of the congregation, and in turn were expected to pray for their benefactors as well as for all other members of the church. Their duties and qualifications were developed from the instructions in 1 Timothy 5. In the Clementine Recognitions and Homilies, perhaps from the first half of the 3rd century, St. Peter, as he prepares to leave Tripoli, appoints elders and deacons and organizes an order of widows.

The widow came to be looked upon as “the altar of God,” both because of her ministry of intercession and because of the gifts that she received. Under no circumstances should she reveal the name of a donor, lest other widows demand an equal gift from the same source or, worse yet, curse the one who withheld such benefices. The Didascalia insisted that neither “the bishop nor a presbyter, nor a deacon, nor a widow should utter a curse,” because widows “had been appointed to bless.”

Widows were clearly part of the ordained clergy in the Testament of Our Lord Jesus Christ, a 5th-century reworking of earlier material from Hippolytus’s Apostolic Tradition. The selection process and ordination service of widows parallels those of deacons, bishops and presbyters. The document applies the title “presbyteresses” to these women, and six times refers to them as “the widows who sit in front.” During communion, they stood by the altar, close to the bishops, presbyters and deacons, and within the veil that screened off the laity. These widows assumed pastoral responsibilities such as instructing female catechumens and the ignorant, gathering those who desired to live a pure life for prayer and encouragement, rebuking the wayward, and seeking to restore them.

Women As Deacons

As Clement of Alexandria made mention of Paul’s reference to deaconesses in 1 Timothy 3:11, so Origen commented on Phoebe, the deacon that Paul mentions in Romans 16:1–2:

“This text teaches with the authority of the Apostle that even women are instituted deacons in the Church. This is the function which was exercised in the church of Cenchreae by Phoebe, who was the object of high praise and recommendation by Paul… And thus this text teaches at the same time two things: that there are, as we have already said, women deacons in the Church, and that women, who by their good works deserve to be praised by the Apostle, ought to be accepted in the diaconate.”

Women deacons appear to be under discussion in 1 Timothy 3:11, although the feminine form “deaconess” did not come into use until about 100 A.D. As late as the end of the 4th century, diaconos might designate a woman as well as a man. The order of deaconesses as distinct from that of widows appears clearly delineated in the first half of the 3rd century in the Didascalia, which declared that the deaconesses should be honored as figures of the Holy Spirit. They could visit believing women in pagan households where a male deacon would be unacceptable. To them belonged the duties of visiting the sick, bathing those recovering from illness, and ministering to the needy. Deaconesses also assisted in the baptism of women, anointing them with oil and giving them instruction in purity and holiness. They could give communion to women who were sick and unable to meet with the entire church. The Apostolic Constitutions even specified that both male and female deacons might be sent with messages outside the city limits. The ministry of the widow was largely that of prayer, fasting, and laying of hands on the sick, while the deaconess, usually a considerably younger woman, undertook the more physically arduous tasks.

Ancient documents show that deaconesses were ordained. The Council of Chalcedon set down requirements for the ordination of deaconesses, and the Apostolic Constitutions includes their ordination prayer.

Women As Elders

The feminine form of “presbyter” or elder occurs frequently, though it is often translated simply as “old woman.” At times the term certainly refers to women who were part of the clergy. The Cappadocian father, Basil, uses presbytera apparently in the sense of a woman who is head of a religious community. Also applied to women is the term presbutis, “older woman” or “eldress.” The old woman who instructed Hermas is called presbytis. It occurs not only in Titus 2:3, but most markedly in Canon 11 of Laodicea, which forbade the appointment of presbytides (eldresses) or of female presidents (prokathemenai).

The masculine form, prokathemenos, indicated the presbyter or bishop who presided over the communion service. Dionysius of Alexandria, who died in 264 A.D., described a martyr as “the most holy eldress Mercuria” and another as “a most remarkable virgin eldress Apollonia.” A variant reading of the apocryphal Martyrdom of Matthew, a 4th- or 5th-century document, tells how Matthew ordained a king as priest and his wife as presbytis, “eldress.” Epiphanius and Theodoret vehemently repudiated any priestly function accruing to the “presbytides.”

Women As Priests?

There are even a few scattered references connecting women to the priesthood. Pseudo-Ignatius’s Letter to the Tarsians commands that those who continue in virginity be honored as priestesses of Christ. The eldresses of Titus 2:3 must be “hieroprepeis,” a term that inscriptional evidence suggests should be translated “like a priestess,” or “like those employed in sacred service.” The Cappadocian Gregory of Nazianzus wrote to Gregory of Nyssa about Theosebia, “the pride of the church, the ornament of Christ, the finest of our generation, the free speech of women, Theosebia, the most illustrious among the brethren, outstanding in beauty of soul. Theosebia, truly a priestly personage, the colleague of a priest, equally honored and worthy of the great sacraments.”

The walls of the Roman catacombs bear pictures showing women in authoritative stances, with their hands raised in the posture of a bishop. The Ecclesiastical Canons of the Apostles specifically forbade women to stand in prayer (24:1–8). But here we see them standing in prayer, exercising a ministry of intercession and benediction, and dominating the scene. To this day, their steadfast faith and ministry still bless us.

(Dr. Catherine Kroeger is chaplain and lecturer in the department of religion at Hamilton College in New Hartford, N.Y. Her doctorate is in classical studies and Greek, with a specialization in women in ancient religion, especially women and the ecclesiology of the Apostle Paul)

PAT SAYS:

I do not see the question of women in the Church being primarily a feminist question.

It is primarily a theological, scriptural and pastoral question.

As we can see from Dr. Kroger's writings above there is a great and historic precedent for the involvement of women at every level of Church life.

While it would be a big shift for the RC Church to take after 1800 + years to ordain women - and I think they should - they could begin in other ways.

Pope Francis has asked for a discussion about women deacons.

But there is nothing to stop Francis creating WOMEN CARDINALS!

Cardinals do not have to be in Holy Orders.

Why not make a few women be prefects/heads of Vatican departments and congregations?

Why not invite and train and remunerate women as CANON LAWYERS - to become chancellors of dioceses and to run marriage tribunals?

Why not divide a diocesan responsibility in TWO - and make the bishop the PASTOR and a woman the CHIEF EXECUTIVE?

Why not have women as parish managers and restrict priests to pastoral responsibilities?

Why can't a woman run the managerial end of Knock Shrine and the parish priest be simply the pastor?

Why do bishops have priest secretaries when priests are so short. Why not have women diocesan secretaries?

Why have priests teaching THEOLOGY when a lay woman or man theologian could do that job?

Why have a priest TIMOTHY The Wannabe Bishop BARTLETT being the organiser of World Family Day in Dublin in 2018. Why not a women organiser and make Timmy do a decent bit of parish work for a change?

Why have priests as school principals when a layman or woman could do at least as good a job?


While we are getting our heads around the ordination of women issue - lets get on with having more women employees and officers.

After all more than 50% of most congregations these days are women.

When DIARMUID MARTIN leaves Dublin in a few years time let us divide his job. Let's have a woman as Archdiocese of Dublin Chief Executive - and Diarmuid's replacement as the Archdiocese of Dublin's PASTORAL DIRECTOR?

What about it Francis ????


The PRIESTS and PEOPLE of Dublin would see a lot more of their senior pastor if he was not stuck to a desk overseeing finances, committees and properties.

Indonesia Bishop Resigns in Finance, Mistress Scandal

·         Associated Press

---

Pope Francis gives the thumbs up as he leaves at the end of his weekly general audience, in St. Peter's Square, at the Vatican, Oct. 11, 2017. Pope Francis on Wednesday accepted the resignation of Bishop Hubertus Leteng of Indonesia's Ruteng diocese.

VATICAN CITY — 

A Roman Catholic bishop in Indonesia has resigned following reports that he had a mistress and siphoned off more than $100,000 in church funds.

Pope Francis on Wednesday accepted the resignation of Bishop Hubertus Leteng of Indonesia's Ruteng diocese. The Denpasar bishop, Monsignor Sylvester San, will run the diocese until a permanent replacement is found, the Vatican said.

Local Indonesian media and the Ucanews agency, which covers the Catholic Church in Asia, reported that dozens of priests resigned en masse in June to protest Letang's administration.

The Vatican sent an investigator to look into their allegations that Letang had a mistress and secretly borrowed $94,000 from the Indonesian bishops' conference and another $30,000 from the diocese without accounting for it.

According to Ucanews, Letang said the money was used to finance the education of a poor youth, though he declined to provide details. He called allegations he had a relationship with a woman ``slanderous.''

The Vatican didn't address the scandal or explain why Letang was retiring early. The Ruteng diocese made no mention of the allegations in its announcement of Letang's departure Wednesday. Bishops normally submit their resignations when they reach age 75. Leteng is 58.

Catholics represent a minority in Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim country. The nation nevertheless is home to some 45 bishops and 4,900 Catholic priests, according to 2015 Vatican statistics.

Letang's resignation is the latest in a handful of cases of the Vatican persuading — or in some cases strong-arming — bishops accused of wrongdoing to step down. Often the cases go unnoticed, particularly when they involve in-house financial mismanagement because the Vatican never explains why bishops are leaving their posts.

Sometimes the scandals are well known. In the United States, two bishops accused of botching clerical sexual abuse cases resigned under Vatican pressure in 2015. More recently, Guam's archbishop was forced to step aside after he was put on trial in the Vatican for allegedly sexually abusing young boys. A decision, in that case, is expected soon.

PAT SAYS:

Every day now we hear stories of a Catholic bishop somewhere getting into trouble and Francis accepting their resignations.

That's how Rome handles it. Instead of sacking a bishop they say HE OFFERED HIS RESIGNATION.

In other words, they are allowed to jump instead of being pushed.

Many of the scandals are multiple - a sex scandal joined by a financial scandal.

In the case of this Indonesian guy, the $100,000 was pinched by his and his girlfriend.

In other cases, it has been a scandal involving money and a man.

In some cases, it is child abuse.

I think we do not really hear about all the money scandals involving bishops. Bishops are lord of the manor when it comes to the diocese and its funds.

It would be very easy for a bishop to divert large sums of money into his own personal accounts or the accounts of mistresses, boyfriends or family members.

In fact, I would say that bishops using Church money for their own pursuits is very widespread and that we never hear about it.

Sometimes it is the sex scandal that also brings out the financial scandal too.

Nowadays bishops keep a very tight financial control on priests.

But who checks what a bishop is doing with the diocesan finances?

All church accounts should be totally transparent and thge bishop should have a set, public salary and like anyone else should have to hand over receipts for expenses he incurs.

For instance, we still do not know if Noel Treanor in Down and Connor spent ONE MILLION of FOUR MILLION on renovating his palace in Belfast ???