nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

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

[Deleted User]

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.

[Deleted User]

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?

[Deleted User]

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.

[Deleted User]

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.

[Deleted User]

Cabaal wrote: »

He's not expressing views, he's spreading baseless conspiracy theories. Especially in relation to WHO and vaccines.

You're splitting hairs here, his views are his views, regardless, I do not agree with them.

In addition population replacement is very much racist conspiracy theory, it's an extremely common idea among right wing groups and its followers.
Anyone spreading such ideas needs to be called out for what they are....a racist, clear and simple.

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

I have read his published views on immigration on election leaflets and such, while not agreeing with them I am not confident that you would be able to successfully defend the view that he subscribes to that theory or is a racist. This was my point, you are making these public claims about a local man, on a local forum.

Objectionable as they are, if anything his views seem less extreme than those recently put forward by Barnier.

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 follwers. Lets not forget the harm being done by the catholic church in Poland too and the homophobic views that Catholics hold in respect of gay people.

I thought this thread was about the Bishop and the diocesan secretary? Or is it just a general free for all for you to have a go at Christ's church?

You seem to be making another lazy accusation here, that "Catholics" hold "homophobic views". These sort of disparaging generalizations about a billion plus people based merely on the fact of their religion are rather disturbing, and disappointing. You have commented on right-wing views in this thread, it has long been a trademark of the far-right to made such collective generalizations about people because they happen to be a certain religion, and demonize them collectively. You should really be more considered here, and careful with your words, because I am sure deep down you did not really mean what you said.

I can not speak on behalf of anyone else in this thread, but my comments were mainly an observation that people should have some restraint when publicly throwing around labels, particularly when they are about a local man. I reinforced this point by making reference to recent (over the last few years) incidents of RTE having to make sizable payouts to people (who probably hold even more objectionable views!) because of similar public use of lazy labels, which are not at all necessary.

I note you mention Gript, McQuirk is a hateful little man and its laughable to even mention his so called news site in any meaningful discussion.

I can see you are exercised about this, so I understand why you have missed the point I was making (and presumably McQuirk is a typo and you meant John McGuirk). My point has nothing to do with any merit the website he edits has, but rather that the Defense Forces, following contact from Gript's solicitors, felt it necessary to, at considerable expense, recall, pulp and reprint their annual magazine to remove a reference to Gript being "far-right". This is an important reference, I feel, considering that far worse labels are being applied to a private individual here.

The point is simple, there is enough to legitimately talk about without getting lazy with labels and possibly give people who are known to be litigious an opportunity to cash in.

[Deleted User]

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

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 in itself says nothing about his views on race. What he's said / tweeted and the party manifesto he stood for electdion on are both rather problematic in this regard however.

Disturbingly it seems that even more extreme views are becoming mainstream now, with Barniers call for a ban on non-EU immigration to France/EU for five years. And we both know this is not aimed at white Americans. It's a bit more of a polished version of Trumps infamous "ban" on immigration.

But in any case, I don't agree with the comments/position on immigration, but my point was (which in fairness I think you got) that there is a need for care when throwing around labels considering the payouts people have got for lesser comments about arguably 'worse' people. "Problematic", is far safer

Yellow_Fern

Cabaal wrote: »

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

I am responding good faith. Id appreciate if that was reciprocated dude.

Cabaal wrote: »

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

That is Crimine solicitationies, only involved abuse by priests in confession. Privacy was involved in the investigation stage like any sex abuse investigation today. There is no basis to assume that the Holy See envisioned this process to be a substitute for any secular legal process, criminal or civil. https://www.ncregister.com/blog/promoting-justice-prosecuting-paedophiles#ixzz29YkcXKc

Cabaal wrote: »

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

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

Not sure what your point is what the video? Cross examination isn't easy. This is not exactly a church thing. Furthermore the Ryan Commission or what the Mayor of Clonmel says has nothing to do with the Vatican. The Ryan Report was was about abuse by orders and employees of orders. The Vatican would have no role in disciplining brothers who commit abuse. We don't have the details, but I presume it is some Christian brother investigator who might be in Rome but have a totally different investigation procedure?

I will say it again, there is zero evidence that that the Vatican discouraged civil investigation into abuse in any case. There is zero evidence that Vatican knowingly let abuse happen. In contrast we do know some abbot did allow abuse to happen and to a lesser extent some bishops.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

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

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.

His superior did cover it up. Vatican and Irish bishops didn't cover this case up.

friendlyfun wrote: »

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.

No one in the discussion is far right. Do you really think you are more clued in than the people you are attacking? Really?

Yellow_Fern

Cabaal wrote: »

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 follwers. Lets not forget the harm being done by the catholic church in Poland too and the homophobic views that Catholics hold in respect of gay people.

I note you mention Gript, McQuirk is a hateful little man and its laughable to even mention his so called news site in any meaningful discussion.

Show us example. I can't see any. The only common theme on this thread is a debunked conspiracy theory that the Vatican knowing covered up abuse and dodgy knowledge about church structure.

Hotblack Desiato

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

In contrast we do know some abbot did allow abuse to happen and to a lesser extent some bishops.

Right. Who appointed and instructed those bishops?

killbillvol2

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Right. Who appointed and instructed those bishops?

Don't expect an answer for about three weeks. He has to go back and check the party line with the Vatican.

Cabaal

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

The only common theme on this thread is a debunked conspiracy theory that the Vatican knowing covered up abuse and dodgy knowledge about church structure.

Conspiracy theory my backside,

Unless you think the UN and country's throughout the world are in on some big conspiracy theory?...are you really going to play the church is being persecuted card?
:rolleyes:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/un-slams-vatican-efforts-cover-pedophile-priests-sex-abuse-scandal-flna2d11939463

https://edition.cnn.com/2014/02/05/world/europe/un-vatican-report/index.html

I've already provided evidence on this thread of a Vatican document which gave direction to bishops, are you trying to now suggest this was made up?

Your posts here do no favours for the church, its followers like yourself that led to the problems the church had. Putting the church above the victims.

Yellow_Fern

Cabaal wrote: »

Conspiracy theory my backside,

Conspiracy means a plan to secretly commit crime so it's a very much a conspiracy theory, in the original sense.

Cabaal wrote: »

Conspiracy theory my backside,

Unless you think the UN and country's throughout the world are in on some big conspiracy theory?...are you really going to play the church is being persecuted card?
:rolleyes:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/un-slams-vatican-efforts-cover-pedophile-priests-sex-abuse-scandal-flna2d11939463

https://edition.cnn.com/2014/02/05/world/europe/un-vatican-report/index.html

I didn't read the actual UN Report but I notice this summary does not say that Vatican knowingly covered up. It then makes the odd claim that the Vatican is responsible for implementing the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child globally. What are they smoking to think that is sensible???

Cabaal wrote: »

Your posts here do no favours for the church, its followers like yourself that led to the problems the church had. Putting the church above the victims.

Crimen sollicitationis was similar any to other investigation procedure, which typically require privacy. We should not expect that good child protection that we developed in the last 15 years, should be present in a document written in 1922!

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Right. Who appointed and instructed those bishops?

Rome appointed them. They deserve blame for appointing such bad men. In regards discipline of abusers, Rome would only have been involved if a priest was being laicized, ie. if they took correct strict action.

robindch

Bishop Phonsie is back out banging the drum - this time promoting, and may even have organized, a far-right meeting in Clonmel which is hosting anti-everything activist Tracey O'Mahony and her fella, Mike Connell, aka Satirical Soldier, an active member of Ireland's surprisingly well-funded far-right:

https://waterfordlismore.ie/education-conference-saturday-9th-september-talbot-hotel-clonmel/

https://twitter.com/EamonnVIDF/status/1700095503633903811

Cabaal

You could be sure of one thing, like before there's a financial benefit to people with this crap.