Irish examiner article - Bishop Phonsie

SeanieW1977

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/munster/arid-40262087.html?type=amp&__twitter_impression=true

A very strange choice by the bishop for his “right hand man”

Some extremist views, is it to be assumed these are also the views of the bishop?

Hotblack Desiato

Wow, what a gobshyte.

Phonsie is Opus Dei, so anything is possible.

SeanieW1977

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Wow, what a gobshyte.

Phonsie is Opus Dei, so anything is possible.

This is also very informative;

https://twitter.com/newsworthy_ie/status/1102909239947919361?s=21

Wouldn’t surprise me if Walsh was too.

Max Powers

An embarrassing pair that would like to drag Ireland back to the 50s

Cabaal

Max Powers wrote: »

An embarrassing pair that would like to drag Ireland back to the 50s

Let's face it, the 1950s is their wet dream

Harry Palmr

Not my flock happily

Yellow_Fern

SeanieW1977 wrote: »

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/munster/arid-40262087.html?type=amp&__twitter_impression=true

A very strange choice by the bishop for his “right hand man”

Some extremist views, is it to be assumed these are also the views of the bishop?

He doesnt have extremist views. Dumb hit job of an Examiner article.

Yellow_Fern

Max Powers wrote: »

An embarrassing pair that would like to drag Ireland back to the 50s

Cabaal wrote: »

Let's face it, the 1950s is their wet dream

Another example of how progressives don't care about truth. Your dishonesty is depressing.

kayaksurfbum

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Another example of how progressives don't care about truth. Your dishonesty is depressing.

There's only two people you could be!

SeanieW1977

and his second name rhymes with either squelsh or burly!! :pac:

Yellow_Fern

kayaksurfbum wrote: »

There's only two people you could be!

SeanieW1977 wrote: »

and his second name rhymes with either squelsh or burly!! :pac:

I am prob half the age of the people you refer too. It is mad that you have such confidence in your prejudice that you think that there are only two people who could disagree with you lol

kayaksurfbum

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

I am prob half the age of the people you refer too. It is mad that you have such confidence in your prejudice that you think that there are only two people who could disagree with you lol

The marriage equality and repeal the 8th referendum should have taught me to ignore the far right folk like yourself, but, tell me why do you feel like a minority in your own country???

killbillvol2

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Another example of how progressives don't care about truth. Your dishonesty is depressing.

Ah the left. The bastards. Opposing child abuse and misogyny. Shame on them.

Yellow_Fern

kayaksurfbum wrote: »

The marriage equality and repeal the 8th referendum should have taught me to ignore the far right folk like yourself, but, tell me why do you feel like a minority in your own country???

Are you capable of having discussions with people who disagree with you in good faith? It just seems to me that you are trying to have a rise by calling me far right. If I am far right so is every Irish gov until about 2010.

killbillvol2 wrote: »

Ah the left. The bastards. Opposing child abuse and misogyny. Shame on them.

I didn't think we were talking about those issues. Catholics oppose child abuse and misogyny. Bishop Phonsie and indeed his predecessor Lee have good records on fighting child abuse.

SeanieW1977

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Are you capable of having discussions with people who disagree with you in good faith? It just seems to me that you are trying to have a rise by calling me far right. If I am far right so is every Irish gov until about 2010.



I didn't think we were talking about those issues. Catholics oppose child abuse and misogyny. Bishop Phonsie and indeed his predecessor Lee have good records on fighting child abuse.

Yea because the Catholic Church has an exemplary record on both counts.

As for the two names - have a day off.

Yellow_Fern

SeanieW1977 wrote: »

Yea because the Catholic Church has an exemplary record on both counts.

You don't get to discredit someone because of what others have done.

SeanieW1977 wrote: »

As for the two names - have a day off.

False allegations were made by trolls on the thread including yourself. You cant blame me for countering them.

killbillvol2

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

You don't get to discredit someone because of what others have done.




False allegations were made by trolls on the thread including yourself. You cant blame me for countering them.

What were the false allegations?

You equated "progressives" with not wanting to return to the 50s of child abuse, misogyny and the stifling, corrupt and toxic influence of the RC church.

Would you like the church to control peoples' lives? Would you like a return to the Magdalen laundries? Would you like rampant sex with children to be swept under the carpet?

I don't know what forums you get your backwards views on normally but in the real world progress is a good thing.

Yellow_Fern

killbillvol2 wrote: »

What were the false allegations?
Would you like the church to control peoples' lives? Would you like a return to the Magdalen laundries? Would you like rampant sex with children to be swept under the carpet?

I don't know what forums you get your backwards views on normally but in the real world progress is a good thing.

It was said that 1950s Ireland was an ideal Catholic mode. This isn't true and the statement is clearly in bad faith.

It was said that Lee Walsh is an extremist for saying people are pushing abortion to reduce abortion. I doorstepped during the abortion vote and plenty of Waterford people told me abortion is needed here to reduce unwanted kids so to call Walsh an extremist because he said that is farcical.

Then there was absurd claim that Walsh is a racist. You do realise that his wife isnt Irish? How does that work?

killbillvol2 wrote: »

What were the false allegations?

You equated "progressives" with not wanting to return to the 50s of child abuse, misogyny and the stifling, corrupt and toxic influence of the RC church.

I brought the term progressive into the conversation to describe the people who ****etaking. I don't consider these values progressive (really they are naive and anti science) but people should use the endonyms to describe groups. Likewise we call communists this term even they were didn't really establish commune-societies and we call fascists this even though fascists are not united like the term fascio, the Italian word for bundle, of sticks implies.

uptherebels

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

You don't get to discredit someone because of what others have done.

oh of course, but that isn't the same as catholics continuing support for an organisation that put its money and power above the stopping the atrocities committed against the most defenceless in society.

Cabaal

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

False allegations were made by trolls on the thread including yourself. You cant blame me for countering them.

Let me stop you here.
Your low-level trolling isn't acceptable on this thread, additionally calling other users on this thread trolls will result in your being hit with the ban hammer fairly quickly.

Any more of this nonsense is going to earn you a ban.

If you have a problem with a post, report it.

Yellow_Fern

uptherebels wrote: »

oh of course, but that isn't the same as catholics continuing support for an organisation that put its money and power above the stopping the atrocities committed against the most defenceless in society.

Can you cite an examples of Waterford and Lismore Diocese doing that? Or any in Ireland? The Catholic Church was way ahead of any organisation in developing safe guards for child protection, especially here in Ireland. If you compare watchdog reports on the Irish Church with HIQAs reports, you will the State has been far slower to implement adequate child protection.

Cabaal

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Can you cite an examples of Waterford and Lismore Diocese doing that? Or any in Ireland? The Catholic Church was way ahead of any organisation in developing safe guards for child protection, especially here in Ireland. If you compare watchdog reports on the Irish Church with HIQAs reports, you will the State has been far slower to implement adequate child protection.

way ahead?
So did they develop any in the 1950's when they know priests were abusing children?
nope

So did they develop any in the 1960's when they know priests were abusing children?
nope

So did they develop any in the 1970's when they know priests were abusing children?
nope

So did they develop any in the 1980's when they know priests were abusing children?
nope

So did they develop any in the 1990's when they know priests were abusing children?
nope

Slow clap, they formed the National Board for Safeguarding Children in the Catholic Church in 2008 after launching a policy back in 2005. Oh well done. Aren't the catholic church fantastic?
:rolleyes:

Prior to that moving priests around to different parishes so they can re-offend and getting abuse victims to swear silence is not a legitimate form of child protection for any organization.

What makes it even more reprehensible is the catholic church followed these guidelines from the Vatican for decades.

You make it sound like the church found out about abuse and instantly decided on some child protection policies.

The hard reality is the church knew and covered up abuse for decades and only did something with the public backlash became too great and too toxic for them and they were forced into change. The church had no choice.

But lets not forget they still owe millions to abuse victims and they still think if a priest admits to sexual abuse in confession that they shouldn't report it to the Gardai. - https://www.rte.ie/news/world/2019/0701/1059531-abuse-confession/

Quigs Snr

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Can you cite an examples of Waterford and Lismore Diocese doing that? Or any in Ireland? The Catholic Church was way ahead of any organisation in developing safe guards for child protection, especially here in Ireland. If you compare watchdog reports on the Irish Church with HIQAs reports, you will the State has been far slower to implement adequate child protection.

Self protection dressed up as child protection. Nothing more. They behave like any other billion dollar corporation when it comes to their own interests.

Yellow_Fern

Quigs Snr wrote: »

Self protection dressed up as child protection. Nothing more. They behave like any other billion dollar corporation when it comes to their own interests.

The Vatican's budget is considerable less than imagine. What would they have to do to be considered as sincere by you?

killbillvol2

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

The Vatican's budget is considerable less than imagine. What would they have to do to be considered as sincere by you?

They could have issued instructions to bishops to report clerics raping children to the police in their jurisdiction.

Cost to do so in 2021? 0
Cost to do so in 1951? 0

killbillvol2

killbillvol2 wrote: »

They could have issued instructions to bishops to report clerics raping children to the police in their jurisdiction.

Cost to do so in 2021? 0
Cost to do so in 1951? 0

Of course that still wouldn't deal with the bishops and archbishops who were at it too.

It's not like it crept up on them as a new thing:

In 1531, Martin Luther claimed that Pope Leo X had vetoed a measure that cardinals should restrict the number of boys they kept for their pleasure, "otherwise it would have been spread throughout the world how openly and shamelessly the Pope and the cardinals in Rome practice sodomy."

Yellow_Fern

killbillvol2 wrote: »

Of course that still wouldn't deal with the bishops and archbishops who were at it too.

It's not like it crept up on them as a new thing:

In 1531, Martin Luther claimed that Pope Leo X had vetoed a measure that cardinals should restrict the number of boys they kept for their pleasure, "otherwise it would have been spread throughout the world how openly and shamelessly the Pope and the cardinals in Rome practice sodomy."

It is true that there have been bad popes and some have lived terrible lives. The claim you made is from a critique made by Luther who earlier in life described this Pope as chaste. There is other evidence that claims he was a practising homosexual, while others claim he was not. I heard read that the most recent biography has said it possible but tentative. However none of these sources claim he was abusing children. That is a recent interpretation that doesn't seem to be in the academic sources.

Lastly, Leo X was a worldy pope. He was a Medici. It is a unreasonable to try draw a trend line between a Medici pope who lived 500 years ago and 20th cen abuse scandals.

killbillvol2

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

It is true that there have been bad popes and some have lived terrible lives. The claim you made is from a critique made by Luther who earlier in life described this Pope as chaste. There is other evidence that claims he was a practising homosexual, while others claim he was not. I heard read that the most recent biography has said it possible but tentative. However none of these sources claim he was abusing children. That is a recent interpretation that doesn't seem to be in the academic sources.

Lastly, Leo X was a worldy pope. He was a Medici. It is a unreasonable to try draw a trend line between a Medici pope who lived 500 years ago and 20th cen abuse scandals.

I see you ignored my earlier post and deflected again. Which is remarkably similar to the Catholic church's tactics through history. It's like it's part of the training in the seminary.

As I said;

They could have issued instructions to bishops to report clerics raping children to the police in their jurisdiction.

Cost to do so in 2021? 0
Cost to do so in 1951? 0

In any case there's no point engaging with you. Luckily you're in a diminishing minority that will have died out in another generation.

Yellow_Fern

killbillvol2 wrote: »

I see you ignored my earlier post and deflected again. Which is remarkably similar to the Catholic church's tactics through history. It's like it's part of the training in the seminary.

As I said;

They could have issued instructions to bishops to report clerics raping children to the police in their jurisdiction.

Cost to do so in 2021? 0
Cost to do so in 1951? 0
.

To be fair as of 2021 they have. I wish was such measures back in the 1950s. Sadly across wider society this topic recieved little attention, across the west and also in secular states. Indeed the term child sex abuse was not used in the press until about the 1980s (Bingham et al. 2016). In the 1950s there was actually a move away from prosecution which was only very rare. It is only only the 1980s did the issue get serious attention and early 1990s in Ireland.

killbillvol2 wrote: »

In any case there's no point engaging with you. Luckily you're in a diminishing minority that will have died out in another generation.

I gave a detailed polite response and you come out with this. Sound sound

friendlyfun

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

The Vatican's budget is considerable less than imagine. What would they have to do to be considered as sincere by you?

I'm not an atheist, in fact I would call myself a somewhat religious person, however I find the actions of the Catholic Church reprehensible.

I don't think you can possibly justify the Vatican's response to pedophilia. Their immediate response was to hide it, or try to silence the victims.

You had the Pope Emeritus Benedict rediculously try to blame the abuse on the sexual revolution, trying to blame it on an external factor rather than on something that happened organically within the church.

The Church never fully held up the abusers to their own stringent standards of sexual morality so it illustrates a deep hypocrisy. I don't think you'll convince anyone.

Yellow_Fern

friendlyfun wrote: »

I'm not an atheist, in fact I would call myself a somewhat religious person, however I find the actions of the Catholic Church reprehensible.

I don't think you can possibly justify the Vatican's response to pedophilia. Their immediate response was to hide it, or try to silence the victims.

You are going to have to explain what you mean if you want people to agree with you. I dont know any cases of the Vatican silencing people. As for cover ups, there is no evidence that the Vatican intended for cases to be covered up.

friendlyfun wrote: »

You had the Pope Emeritus Benedict rediculously try to blame the abuse on the sexual revolution, trying to blame it on an external factor rather than on something that happened organically within the church.

Plenty of secular academics have said the same thing about child abuse in wider society though. See Bingham et al. 2015 History of education. This is why you got many pedo advocacy groups emerging in the 1960s like the Man Boy Association. In the Dublin Diocese abusers were treated by secular doctors who thought their issues could be easily treated and put them back in the parishes.

friendlyfun wrote: »

The Church never fully held up the abusers to their own stringent standards of sexual morality so it illustrates a deep hypocrisy. I don't think you'll convince anyone.

God is the only judge. Church doesnt judge. The only thing the church can do is remove abusers from positions of power.

Wanderer78

Yellow_Fern wrote:

God is the only judge. Church doesnt judge. The only thing the church can do is remove abusers from positions of power.

What if God doesn't exist? By God does the church judge, it has always judged, the church needs to radically change, for the safety of all citizens, and to save itself

Yellow_Fern

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

God is the only judge. Church doesnt judge. The only thing the church can do is remove abusers from positions of power.

What about judges being the actual judge?
Bring them before the criminal justice system and let real judges do their job?
Instead they hid them away for years.

Cabaal

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

God is the only judge. Church doesnt judge.

Quick question,
Which god? There are thousands of them after all.

The only thing the church can do is remove abusers from positions of power.

Few issues with this narrow mindset,
1) The church failed to do just that for decades, so forgive everyone if they think the church's word is worth nothing.

2) The Church can do more than that, they can report abusers to the Gardai but I've already pointed out the church refuses to report info they learn from confession to the Gardai.

So if a priest mentioned they abused 10 children during confession the church won't report it to the Gardai. This isn't acceptable.

So it's an extremely low bar if you think it's acceptable just for the church to remove people from positions of power, I'd say I'm surprised but I find this narrow mindset very common among people who try to make excuses for the church's crimes.

JohnC.

Also, lets not pretend this is an issue that happened back in the 50s to make yourself feel more comfortable about it being a long time ago. Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, the previous pope, was still trying to keep it in-house as much as he could.

Yellow_Fern

bubblypop wrote: »

What about judges being the actual judge?
Bring them before the criminal justice system and let real judges do their job?
Instead they hid them away for years.

I agree. No one is against that.

Wanderer78 wrote: »

What if God doesn't exist? By God does the church judge, it has always judged, the church needs to radically change, for the safety of all citizens, and to save itself

No it doesnt. It just teaches the nature of God. Even in the 1950s chest thumping fire and brimstone sermons at mass were rare.

Cabaal wrote: »

Quick question,
Which god? There are thousands of them after all.

Why do you ever waste time with these childish questions?

JohnC. wrote: »

Also, lets not pretend this is an issue that happened back in the 50s to make yourself feel more comfortable about it being a long time ago. Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, the previous pope, was still trying to keep it in-house as much as he could.

There is zero evidence he tried to stop civil authorities being involved.

Cabaal wrote: »

Few issues with this narrow mindset,
1) The church failed to do just that for decades, so forgive everyone if they think the church's word is worth nothing.

True, as did the Scouts, sports clubs, families failed too. Everyone is in the same boat here.

Cabaal wrote: »

2) The Church can do more than that, they can report abusers to the Gardai but I've already pointed out the church refuses to report info they learn from confession to the Gardai.

So if a priest mentioned they abused 10 children during confession the church won't report it to the Gardai. This isn't acceptable.

So it's an extremely low bar if you think it's acceptable just for the church to remove people from positions of power, I'd say I'm surprised but I find this narrow mindset very common among people who try to make excuses for the church's crimes.

When a priest hears confession the priest typically don't know who is present. Your proposal is as sensible as trying to track callers to the Garda anonymous line or make mandatory reporting apply to lawyers. In some countries therapists are required to report child abuse but only if it is ongoing. There are no issues working with experts in child health stressing the importance of ceasing child abuse so you couldn't possibility issue absolution if they didnt stop but default mandatory reporting for confession is half-witted.

Wanderer78

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

No it doesnt. It just teaches the nature of God. Even in the 1950s chest thumping fire and brimstone sermons at mass were rare.

oh by god it does! the church has been, and still is, astonishingly judgmental, you only have to look at our history for that one

Cabaal

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

....It just teaches the nature of God. Even in the 1950s chest thumping fire and brimstone sermons at mass were rare.

Rare in the 1950's?
:rolleyes:

They still go on in the 2010's in some parishes, you must be having a laugh.

Priests deny themselves the most natural, normal thing in the world which is to have a sexual relationship with another consenting adult, yet they the Vatican and by extention god stand in judgment of gay people and have the cheek to call gay people unnatural and gay sex intrinsically disordered.

Why do you ever waste time with these childish questions?

Apologies,
I forgot how Catholics like to look down on all other religions and their gods and see the gods as not real.

Apparently out of thousands of gods they choose the one true god even though the evidence to support the god being real is the same as all the other religions.
:rolleyes:

True, as did the Scouts, sports clubs, families failed too. Everyone is in the same boat here.

Did they really?

Tell me, can you share the report with me where the governing body for the GAA created rules for how local GAA clubs should cover up abuse?

Better yet can you share the report on how a worldwide scouting organisation gave directions and guidelines to all scouting organizations in other countries on how they should cover up abuse.

But yet we know for a fact that the Vatican created instructions on how to cover up abuse and the Bishops etc were only happy to carry these out. All to protect the image of the church.

Good man yourself, defending the church with good old whatabouttery.
Keep up the good work :pac:

When a priest hears confession the priest typically don't know who is present. Your proposal is as sensible as trying to track callers to the Garda anonymous line or make mandatory reporting apply to lawyers. In some countries therapists are required to report child abuse but only if it is ongoing. There are no issues working with experts in child health stressing the importance of ceasing child abuse so you couldn't possibility issue absolution if they didnt stop but default mandatory reporting for confession is half-witted.

Keep on making excuses for why the church won't do basic reporting of crimes.

Yellow_Fern

Cabaal wrote: »

Rare in the 1950's?
:rolleyes:.

The more I read about actual life in the 1950s the most I am doubtful about the claim that sermons were all about fire and brimstones. In fact some of the recent Commissions into abuse discussed this and claimed it was rare.

Cabaal wrote: »

Rare in the 1950's?
:rolleyes:

They still go on in the 2010's in some parishes, you must be having a laugh.

Can you give examples?

Cabaal wrote: »

Apologies,
I forgot how Catholics like to look down on all other religions and their gods and see the gods as not real.

Apparently out of thousands of gods they choose the one true god even though the evidence to support the god being real is the same as all the other religions.
:rolleyes:

I would cite Occam's Razor here. One god is more parsimonious than many. However you are very confused on this point. You can believe in Christianity and still believe the gods of other religions exist, I dont but plenty do so you are actually quite on this this point.

Cabaal wrote: »

But yet we know for a fact that the Vatican created instructions on how to cover up abuse and the Bishops etc were only happy to carry these out. All to protect the image of the church.

That isn't true. Where do you get your news? To be frank I'd be too embarrassed to make such a bold claim without being sure of my position

Cabaal wrote: »

Good man yourself, defending the church with good old whatabouttery.
Keep up the good work

You are holding Catholics to a standard which you don't hold to others or yourself.

Cabaal wrote: »

Keep on making excuses for why the church won't do basic reporting of crimes.

In an Irish context, can you cite examples of crimes being prevented by mandatory reporting? Can you cite examples of when any cleric in positions of power anywhere in the world encouraged cover up? Anywhere?

Cabaal

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

That isn't true. Where do you get your news? To be frank I'd be too embarrassed to make such a bold claim without being sure of my position

Honestly, I'm embarrassed for you so I'm not wasting time on the rest of your post.
:rolleyes:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/aug/17/religion.childprotection

The Vatican instructed Catholic bishops around the world to cover up cases of sexual abuse or risk being thrown out of the Church.

The Observer has obtained a 40-year-old confidential document from the secret Vatican archive which lawyers are calling a 'blueprint for deception and concealment'. One British lawyer acting for Church child abuse victims has described it as 'explosive'.

The 69-page Latin document bearing the seal of Pope John XXIII was sent to every bishop in the world. The instructions outline a policy of 'strictest' secrecy in dealing with allegations of sexual abuse and threatens those who speak out with excommunication.

Then there's that time the Vatican sent an 90 year old man over to look victims in the eye and tell the victims they are lying and a catholic order saying that he was only in it for the money.

Don't believe me? I think the former Mayor of Clonmel tells it better then I ever could.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iQGczIx6Sg

friendlyfun

kayaksurfbum wrote: »

The marriage equality and repeal the 8th referendum should have taught me to ignore the far right folk like yourself, but, tell me why do you feel like a minority in your own country???

It's funny these far right folk always claim to be followers Christ, too bad Christ's message of love, tolerance, forgiveness, being kind to strangers etc is lost on them. Wonder how they'll react when they find out Jesus was an middle eastern refugee.

Hotblack Desiato

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Can you cite examples of when any cleric in positions of power anywhere in the world encouraged cover up? Anywhere?

Do you have any notion at all about the claims you are making? It appears not.

In 1975 future cardinal Sean Brady made child victims of clerical rape swear to secrecy.

Disgraceful thing to do to vulnerable, already abused children.

The church knew at that time (if not earlier) that Brendan Smyth was a serial child rapist but made no mention of this to the civil authorities. He went on to rape dozens more children. In 1991 after parents reported him to the RUC he fled Northern Ireland and hid out in his order's abbey in Cavan for three years.

Interesting and important as all this is, what does it have to do with the good Bishop, who was appointed in 2015, and only became a priest in the mid nineties? He is not responsible for things or decisions before he was appointed Bishop or before he became a priest, never-mind before he was born.

The secretary of the diocese may have some odd views on things, but he is basically an administrator, as he says himself:

“My opinions are not in any way relevant to the job,” Mr Walsh said.

I really don't want to be dragged into public life or have any public scrutiny – I'm not in the public sphere.”

He said he "definitely" applied for the role after writing the letter and was appointed in "mid-August" of 2019.

“I totally withdrew [from public life], I understood I can't really have an opinion on things because it wouldn't be appropriate.”

SeanieW1977

Khalid Lively Hall wrote: »

Interesting and important as all this is, what does it have to do with the good Bishop, who was appointed in 2015, and only became a priest in the mid nineties? He is not responsible for things or decisions before he was appointed Bishop or before he became a priest, never-mind before he was born.

The secretary of the diocese may have some odd views on things, but he is basically an administrator, as he says himself:

Was the job advertised or did the good bishop create the role for “one of his own” ?

If so can the job spec be shared?

SeanieW1977

SeanieW1977 wrote: »

Was the job advertised or did the good bishop create the role for “one of his own” ?

If so can the job spec be shared?

Diocesan secretary is not exactly a role made out of thin air, every diocese has one and it is an important role. In this instance he says he applied for the role. The successful applicant is usually selected and/or approved by the College of Consultors which is a committee.

Occasionally a Bishop will 'ask' some unfortunate clergyman to take on the role.

You can see the list of committees the man in question sits on here: https://waterfordlismore.ie/diocesan-committees/

In any case, it is up to the Diocese to decide who they want to employ and decide who is qualified or not, no?

Hotblack Desiato

SeanieW1977 wrote: »

Was the job advertised or did the good bishop create the role for “one of his own” ?

If so can the job spec be shared?

At least the diocese is paying for that role with its own money.

Chaplains at second and third level education, hospitals and the army are paid for out of the public purse. These vacancies are not advertised but go to the local bishop who nominates a priest.

Hotblack Desiato

Khalid Lively Hall wrote: »

In any case, it is up to the Diocese to decide who they want to employ and decide who is qualified or not, no?

True but if they choose to employ someone who has publicly embraced racist/fascist views it reflects very badly upon them.

Hotblack Desiato

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

True but if they choose to employ someone who has publicly embraced racist/fascist views it reflects very badly upon them.

As far as I can see, the man in question has expressed some views about vaccines and the WHO, which, while I do not agree with them, I don't think are either racist or fascist, or that they would support, in defamation proceedings, such an accusation.

He has also expressed concerns/objections about the levels of immigration, saying that there should be "limited and managed migration. The level of immigration must be economically, socially, and culturally viable." He also had concerns about the housing of asylum seekers. While I do not agree with his comments I, personally, would not be confident that these comments would support any accusation that the man is a racist or fascist, should he make the decision to sue for defamation. This is particularly the case given that he is not against immigration altogether, he is married to an immigrant.

You might think I am being overcautious, but I do not think so. This is a local forum about a local man, his job and his employer. I think people ought to be careful when commenting about peoples suitability for jobs, or making comments including throwaway labels like "fascist" and "racist". We have seen from RTE how carelessness in this regard can end up in basically handing people you don't like a nice pile of cash. It would seem to me that there is enough to work with legitimately, without resorting to such lazy labels.

Another example of this is that recently the defense forces had to recall and reprint their annual review magazine because a contributor had lazily labelled Gript as "far-right" in an article. Following contact from Gript's legal team, the Defense Forces recalled the magazine, pulped it, and printed a new one without the lazy "far-right" label.

If the issue is that he is not actually a racist or fascist, and the issue is that he expressed views that can be seen by many as objectionable, then it would seem appropriate that in his job there is a condition (as there are in many jobs, such as the public service) that he does not make any such public comments, or as he puts it himself: “I totally withdrew [from public life], I understood I can't really have an opinion on things because it wouldn't be appropriate.”

Given that he is a qualified financial advisor, it would not seem that he is unqualified for his role, which centers around financial administration.

friendlyfun

Why am I surprised Lee Walsh is in the middle of a controversy. What did he get in the polls last time? Something around 0.09 percent of the votes?

Cabaal

Khalid Lively Hall wrote: »

As far as I can see, the man in question has expressed some views about vaccines and the WHO, which, while I do not agree with them, I don't think are either racist or fascist, or that they would support, in defamation proceedings, such an accusation.

Population replacement is very much racist thing, it's an extremely common idea among right wing groups.

But sure, pretend its not
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Replacement

There's a common theme appearing in this thread, that is that defenders of the church also like to deny reality and the pain, suffering and right wing ideas spread by the church. Lets not forget the harm being done by the catholic church in Poland too.

Hotblack Desiato

Khalid Lively Hall wrote: »

This is particularly the case given that he is not against immigration altogether, he is married to an immigrant.

I think that makes it worse, actually.

To be against all immigration, fair enough, I don't agree and think it ridiculously small minded but it discrminates against all foreign citizens equally...

To be against certain immigration on the grounds of religon, "culture" or race is NOT fair enough.

His wife is the same race as he is so that doesn't say anything about his views on race. We'll just have to rely on what he's said and published, the party he stood for election for, etc.