BENEDICT XVI: NEWS, PAPAL TEXTS, PHOTOS AND COMMENTARY

I'm using the banner of a blog called 'Sentire cum Ecclesia' because it expresses very well the idea that dissident bishops and priests seem not to take into account at all, persisting in pushing their selfish and self-centered ideas on 'how to make the Church better'. Well, it won't get better, until each of them looks into their conscience and learn once more to think with the Church... One must point out that 'always proposing, never imposing' refers to the Christian attitude towards non-Christians and non-believers, but Christians, particularly Catholics - once they have accepted the faith or are born into and catechized properly in the faith - are obliged to take on all the teachings of the faith without picking and choosing - in that way, the faith is 'imposed' on them by the very fact of accepting the faith.

Based on the story below from the Vatican Insider, the Irish media today focused their headline on "Silenced priest sent to monastery to reflect on situation' leaving the impression that it was the Vatican who ordered this, instead of the priest's superior.

Dissident Irish priests' group
raises a stir about 'silencing'
of one of their founders
Fr. Flannery is disciplined by the Superior-General
of the Redemptorist order to which he belongs
in response to CDF concerns about his published views
but the Irish MSM and his group blame 'the Vatican'
by Gerard O'Connell

April 10, 2012

The Association of Irish Priests (ACP) – which represents about a third of all the priests in Ireland – says it is “disturbed” at the silencing of Father Tony Flannery, one of its founder members. The ACP issued a press statement on the afternoon of Easter Monday, April 9, expressing its “extreme unease and disquiet” at this development.

Its statement came after various Irish media, including The Irish Catholic (April 5) and The Irish Times (April 9), had already reported that the Vatican had imposed the silencing.

While the ACP statement gave few details of what had actually happened, Vatican Insider has learned from informed sources that in mid-March Fr. Flannery, 65, a member of the Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer, popularly known as “The Redemptorists”, was summoned to Rome for a meeting with his Superior General, Father Michael Brehl.

This happened about a week before the Vatican released the Summary Report of the Findings of the Visitation to the Irish Church ordered by Pope Benedict XVI following the sexual abuse of minors by priests’ scandal.

In Rome, Fr. Flannery learned that Fr. Brehl, his Canadian Superior General, had earlier been summoned to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), where, according to sources, its prefect, Cardinal William Levada, had informed him that the CDF had concerns about the “orthodoxy” of certain views expressed by Fr.Flannery in articles that he had written for the magazine “Reality”. The monthly magazine is published by the Irish Redemptorists, and has a circulation of around 6,500.

In particular, the CDF was concerned about the orthodoxy of what Fr. Flannery had written regarding contraception, the possibility of married priests in Ireland, and the ordination of women as priests.

The CDF also seems to have problems regarding his leadership role in the Association of Irish Priests, which today has 820 of the 3,400 Irish priests as members, and would like him to withdraw from that.

Sources say the Superior General told Fr. Flannery that he cannot write or speak on any of the above-mentioned subjects. Furthermore, he has asked the Irish priest to go to a monastery for about six weeks to pray and reflect on all this. At the end of that period, he hopes Fr. Flannery will return “to think with the Church” (“sentire cum Ecclesia”). [Obviously, the Redemptorist SG agreed with Cardinal Levada. I am all for freedom of expression, but dissidents should express their dissent with the Church in other media, not use Catholic media to do so! There's a great variety of secular media with far greater readership and following than Catholic media that are only too willing and happy to publicize Cathoklic dissenters. Unlike any other kind of publication, Catholic publications must be consistent with the Church's teaching, i.e., they must respect and preserve the Catholic identity, not accommodate opinions harmful to it. That is the reason pbulications purporting to be Catholic require a 'nihil obstat'.]

Vatican Insider has learned too that the editor of the magazine “Reality”, Fr.Gerard Moloney, also a Redemptorist priest, has been instructed not to write on the abovementioned topics. Moreover, the magazine “Reality” must henceforth be reviewed by a theologian before publication.

Cardinal Levada wants the Superior General of the Redemptorists to report back to him by the end of July to assure him that Fr. Flannery’s situation has been resolved. Vatican Insider has tried to contact the Superior General to have his comments on this whole matter but he had left Rome, and could not be reached at the time of writing.

On the other hand, the ACP, in its statement, commented on what has happened. It said “such an approach, in its individual focus on Fr. Flannery and inevitably by implication on the members of the Association, is an extremely ill-advised intervention in the present pastoral context in Ireland”.

[The question is whether Fr. Flannery and his editor are following their Superior-General's orders, and apparently, they did - or at least, the articles stopped appearing, and Fr. Flannery has not been heard from himself. If so, then the ACP should pick the bone with them, and with the Redemptorist Superior-General, not with the Vatican. If Flannery and Moloney chose to disobey, that's another matter.

Aren't priests in a religious order supposed to be subject to the orders of their Superior-General? Surely, each order has provisions for dealing with insubordination. And obviously, the diocesan priests in the ACP are also under the authority of their respective bishops, so they are really in disobedience to their superiors.

Are there no canonical provisions to punish insubordination, to begin with - quite apart from the fact of openly advocating views that do not conform to what the Church teaches and practices? The Church is necessarily hierarchical and will never be a democracy because matters of faith are not to be decided by perceived 'popular will', not even by popular vote! If a priest willingly and openly places himself in opposition to the Church, then he ought to leave the priesthood, IMHO!]

The ACP affirmed “in the strongest possible terms” its “confidence in and solidarity with Fr Flannery” and stated clearly that it believed that “this intervention is unfair, unwarranted and unwise.”

It said the issues that have been raised by the Association since its foundation less than two years ago, and by Fr. Flannery as part of the leadership team, “are not an attack on or a rejection of the fundamental teachings of the Church. Rather they are an important reflection by an association of over 800 Irish priests - who have given long service to the Catholic Church in Ireland - on issues surfacing in parishes all over the country.”

The ACP rejected its depiction by “some reactionary fringe groups” as “a small coterie of radical priests with a radical agenda” and said it has “protested vehemently against that unfair depiction.”

“We are and we wish to remain at the very heart of the Church, committed to putting into place the reforms of the Second Vatican Council”, the Association stated firmly.

In this light, it said, “We wish to register our extreme unease and disquiet at the present development, not least the secrecy surrounding such interventions and the questions about due process and freedom of conscience that such interventions surface.”

The ACP said it believes that at this critical juncture in history “this form of intervention – what Archbishop Martin recently called ‘heresy hunting’ - is of no service to the Irish Catholic Church and may have the unintended effect of exacerbating a growing perception of a significant ‘disconnect’ between the Irish Church and Rome”. [They are assuming, with such arrogant presumption, that they, the ACP, represent the Irish Church.]

One source told Vatican Insider that the ACP statement only cited a part of Archbishop Martin’s comment. He had actually said: “I’m not saying that we’re going out heresy-hunting, but what we should be doing is carrying on a dialogue with the theological community, sharpening the reflection in areas that really go beyond what is acceptable in the realm of Catholic theology.”

The ACP actually took advantage of the national almost anachronistic hysteria in Ireland against the Church on account of the sex abuses committed by Irish clergy and the inaction or cover-up by their bishops in order to launch their association in 2010 and advocate their liberal reforms (contraception, married priests women priests) which, contrary to their statement, were never proposed by Vatican II.

One obvious question comes to mind which I ought to have mentioned earlier: has the CDF initiated any similar action with Irish bishops who have dissident ACP priests in their jurisdiction? It seems unfair to single out Flannery - even if he may be the most prominent ACP member - and say nothing, at least publicly, of the diocesan priests and other members of religious orders who belong to the ACP.

The task of purifying the Irish Church - each diocese, religious order, parish, seminary and Catholic institution - does not refer only to reparation for clerical sex abuses and episcopal cover-ups, but to the more general question of religious discipline, i.e., following orthodox Catholic teaching and practice, which the ACP members obviously are not doing. In terms of numbers alone (900 compared to 400), the ACP is already far more 'significant' than the Austrian Pfarrer-Initiative. And being Anglophone, they necessarily command a wider worldwide media coverage than their Austrian counterpart since English is the international lingua franca.



4/12/12
P.S. On the same issue, Paolo Rodari has written another one of his pieces about Church affairs (which are, to me, ambivalent at best, and at worst, sympathetic to dissenters) in this commentary about the ACP case, in which he not only reports a violent reaction from a ranking Redemptorist opposing the CDF action, but also credits the CDF's particular vigilance over the Flannery case as being one of the first concrete results of the appointment of Mons. Charles Brown as Apostolic Nuncio to Ireland... All in all, by his presentation, he has lent himself to being used as the propaganda mouthpiece for the dissident Irish priests. The extent of the fisking that I found necessary indicates how severe I find Rodari's bias to be.

The vain attempts of the CDF to re-evangelize Ireland
and quell the insurgency of 900 dissident priests
by Paolo Rodari
Translated from

April 11, 2012

NB: The headline actually says '900 dissident Redemptorists' - that's habitual journalistic sloppiness - but obviously, the ACP is not made up only of Redemptorists, and Ireland certainly cannot have 900 Redemptorists, considering that there are only an estimated 5,300 Redemptorists in the 77 countries of the world where they are represented.

The words directed by Pope Benedict XVI on Maundy Thursday to 'disobedient' Austrian priests - those of the Pfarrer Initiative, which since June 2011, has gathered almost 400 signatures online supporting their demand to abolish priestly celibacy and other substantial reforms in the life of the Church, and has found support in Germany, Ireland, Belgium and Switzerland - have not been without consequence.

[First, I do not see why Rodari should have used quotation marks with 'disobedient', because the priests are disobedient, and their manifesto is precisely entitled 'Call to Disobedience'. Using the quotation marks would make out the Holy Father to be untruthful in his characterization of the priests.

2) The Austrian priests have not 'found support' in the other countries mentioned. Rather, their initiative is similar to that raised by priests in those countries for some time.

3) Since the events connected with dissident Irish priests described below by Rodari took place weeks before the Maundy Thursday homily, they cannot be the 'consequences' of the homily. It's the other way around: the Holy Father decided to speak openly about an issue that the Church must confront, and that obviously, it has been trying to confront behind the scenes through various means - all ineffectual so far, unfortunately.]

On the one hand, the Pope's words have given vigor and new energy to those faithful and priests who do not think that the Church should adopt reforms that are discontinuous with her tradition.

Among these is the parish priest of Stuetzenhofen, north of Vienna, Fr. Gerhard Swierzek, who, after the Archbishop of Vienna and primate of the Austrian Church, Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn, had overriden him to accept the election of a practising homosexual to the pastoral council of his parish, decided to resign as parish priest. [Must check this out, as this is the first I have read about it.]

On the other hand, Papa Ratzinger's words have caused the Vatican's watchdogs of the faith to close ranks: Specifically, the news was made known at this time that Cardinal William Levada, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, has decided to 'silence' one of the leaders of the Irish dissident priests [belonging to the Association of Catholic Priests, ACP]. [It reinforces my journalistic reservations about Rodari even more that nowhere in the article does he ever mention the name of the association!... Note his use of the term 'watchdogs' - he could have used 'custodians' or 'guardians', but no, he uses a term that recalls his detractors' favorite and obviously denigratory term for Cardinal Ratzinger as a Rottweiler... And finally, just because the news of the action against Flannery happened to be made public after the Holy Father's homily does not mean that the 'closing ranks' at the CDF only took place after the homily - on the contrary, the CDF had taken action weeks earlier. Rodari's lack of logic, or even common sense, just to 'reinforce' whatever hypothesis he is advocating, can be appalling! ]

In fact, the CDF has asked Fr. Tony Flannery, a Redemptorist from Limerick - who, for some time, in the wake of the Austrian initiative [The ACP should bridle at this suggestion that their movement is simply a 'me too' follow-up to the Austrians!], has led an association of some 900 priests who support women priests, do not share the Vatican's view on contraception [It's not the 'Vatican's view' - it's the Church's teaching!], and denounce the gravity of sexual abuses in the Church [One would think it was a general pervasive condition instead of being the transgressions of a tiny fraction of priests and bishops. But see how a journalist can betray his sympathies by his very choice of words to describe any situation?] - to 'stop it!'

It was the Superior of the Redemptorists, Fr. Adrian Egan, who said a few hours ago that the Holy See had sent Flannery a bare and crude threat to "stop publishing his opinions and writing in the Redemptorist magazine, and to keep away from (expressing himself on) radio and TV". [Does anyone see a threat, let alone one that is 'bare and crude' in the order as stated?]

[Since O'Connell's article had correctly identified the Redemptorist Superior-General as Fr. Brehl, I had to check out who Fr. Egan is, whom Rodari erroneously - perhaps deliberately - cites as 'the Superior of the Redemptorists'. Egan is, in fact, only the superior of the Redemptorist monastery in Limerick, therefore, presumably, Flannery's immediate superior. This misrepresentation on the part of Rodari is plain and simple dishonest journalism! A veteran journalist like Rodari does not 'mis-state' a fact by accident. His intention is to make it appear that the order itself had nothing to do with the disciplinary measure against Flannery, when in fact, it had to be handed down to Flannery by the Superior-General of the Redemptorists, as O'Connell reported earlier, at the request of the CDF, to be sure, but also, in accordance with canonical protocol. Brehl was acting in communion with the Church, unlike Egan and his fellow dissidents.]]

Fr. Egan - he does not hide the fact - is on Flannery's side. He said he was "dismayed, appalled, stunned, and enormously disappointed by the action of the Vatican". [Actually, the discipline described is similar to that which Cardinal Ratzinger, as CDF Prefect, had imposed on Catholic theologians who published unorthodox Christian doctrine, for instance, Leonardo Boff, whose discipline was to stop publishing articles or books or speaking publicly about his questioned teachings for at least a year. We are not told what time period was given Flannery,]

He said that 'hundreds of faithful' felt the way he did, and that today, the situation is tragic in the churches of 'half of Europe' because 'agents of orthodoxy' from the Vatican are circulating to verify - "with the nitpicking fussiness of J. Edgar Hoover's FBI" - every statement made by priests that is not in line with Church doctrine. [Now, that is outright and ludicrous paranoia. The entire staff of the CDF numbers about 50, with more than enough desk work to occupy them. What 'agents' could the Vatican possibly send out to spy and snoop on dissident priests - and when has it ever done so, anyway?]

According to him, these 'agents' evaluate those who are not following the right path and report them right away to Rome which promptly carries out acts of 'repression'. And Rodari just listens to this and reports it without challenge? What cases of 'repression' can Egan cite?]

The dispute between Flannery and the Holy See has existed for some time. When the Irish Prime Minister Enda Kenny last June accused the Vatican of minimizing the 'rapes and tortures' suffered by Irish children at the hands of priests - Kenny based his accusation on the report on the Cloyne report which, he claims [very wrongly!] proved the attempt of the Vatican to block any investigation of sexual offenses by priests - Flannery came out openly in support of Kenny, not masking his irritation at the Vatican.

"I am happy about the Prime Minister's statements," he said. "Many priests and faithful in Ireland are frustrated at the way that the Vatican has carried out its business here". [First of all, the problems of the Irish Church are primarily the responsibility of her bishops. The Vatican does not have a direct hand at all in their affairs. The infamous letter by a now-dead Nuncio to the Irish bishops expressing reservations about mandatory reporting for its implications in canonical law was a simple a statement of opinion, and could in no way be interpreted as a directive to the Irish bishops, who, in any case, followed their own counsel.]

Beyond his positions on priestly celibacy, comm8union for remarried Catholic divorcees, and in general on sexual morality, many in the Vatican object to Flannery's accusations that the Vatican has deliberately covered up the sex abuses committed by priests.

These charges hurt because Flannery's position is shared in some way by some Irish bishops and seems to be taking root more and more among Irish Catholics.

A significant voice among them is the Archbishop of Dublin, Mons. Diarmuid Martin who served in the Roman Curia from 1986 to 2001 as under-secretary and then secretary of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace.

Martin has said in recent months that the Roman Curia did little, very little, to combat the problem of pedophilia. {Did he actually say that? I don't remember reading it, but if so, how dare he? Is he discounting totally what them-Cardinal Ratzinger and the CDF have been doing since 2001 to concretely deal with this issue?]

He was praised for those words by the New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd [who detests anything remotely connected with the Church unless it's someone, like Martin, who plays to the public and makes appropriate noises denouncing the Church, in which case, he's a hero deserving of a monument!][/DIM who wrote of him, "Martin, who has always been on the side of the victims, is an outsider". [You'd think that Benedict XVI, who spoke out in 2005 against the 'filth' in the Church on the part of those who are supposed to be representatives of Christ, years before anyone ever heard Martin speak out about abusive priests, has not been on the side of the victims at all.]

She means he is an outsider in a Church hierarchy in which two names stand out negatively - Cardinal Bernard Law, ex-Archbishop of Boston who after the eruption of the priest scandals in his diocese transferred to Rome as Arch-Priest of Santa Maria Maggiore [sic! - 'transferred to Rome', transitive and active, rather than 'was transferred to Rome', intransitive and passive. Rodari makes it appear as if Law's transfer was self-assigned, rather than offered to him by now-Blessed John Paul II]; and Cardinal Angelo Sodano, ex-Secretary of State "who defended the notorious pedophile and father of illegitimate children Marcial Maciel Degollado", founder of the Legionaries of Christ. [Rodari does not attribute the quotation about Sodano, which one assumes, comes from Dowd. In any case, both Law and Sodano are no longer in the Roman Curia, so Rodari is being disingenuous in citing them as examples of the Church hierarchy to be contrasted, as it were, in all their evil blackness with the lilywhite Martin!

The Vatican's action against Flannery appears to be an initiative of Mons. Charles Brown, an American and former staff member of the CDF whom Benedict XVI named Nuncio to Ireland, with the delicate mission of softening the conflict between the Holy See and the Irish government, while reporting to the Vatican what is happening in the Irish Church.

Brown's appointment was apparently in full awareness of what John Paul II's biographer George Weigel wrote recently about Ireland: "It is mission territory, as the United States once was. In 1921, an Irishman, Michael Joseph Curley, who became Archbishop of Baltimore, at a time when anti-Irish and anti-Catholic prejudices were very strong. For this reason, it is not strange that now an American, like Brown, has crossed the Atlantic Ocean to become Apostolic Nuncio to Ireland".

The intimidation of Flannery seems to be the first significant step in Ireland by the American who has been sent to the land of St. Patrick. [Why would Rodari use the term 'intimidation of Flannery' instead of the more neutral 'CDF action against Flannery'???? An order to cease and desist from carrying out activities which are deemed harmful to the Church is not necessarily intimidation. Rodari himself, or his source, Egan, has not reported any "...or else" that came with the order that would make it a threat!

MORE IMPORTANTLY, A GOOD REPORTER WOULD HAVE TRIED TO FIND OUT WHERE IS FLANNERY, WHAT IS HE DOING ABOUT THE DISCIPLINARY ORDER, AND DOES HE HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY. NEITHER O'CONNELL NOR RODARI - NOR ANY OF THE IRISH MSM REPORTS I HAVE SEEN SO FAR - HAS DONE THAT, BUT IT WOULD SEEM TO BE THE MOST OBVIOUS THING FOR A REPORTER TO FOLLOW UP - AND FOR A THINKING READER TO ASK!

Two important issues remain unanswered by all the huffing and puffing done by O'Connell and Rodari in their respective articles:

1) What is the CDF doing about disciplining the dissident diocesan priests in Ireland? Is it doing these through their bishops? Why can't it do something similar in Austria and other coutnries with significant dissident-priest movements? [As against simply dissident priests who are unorganized.]

2) The questions I raised about Flannery that any reader would ask automatically.]

[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 12/04/2012 13:20]