Category: Abuse of Power

Posted on

Archbishop orders priests to oppose or stay silent on gay-marriage

“There ought not be open dissension on this issue,” is the message the Catholic hierarchy is telling priests in Minnesota — “this issue” being same-sex marriage.

In a private speech to Minnesota’s priests last October, Archbishop John C. Nienstedt said that any priest who disagreed with the church’s efforts to place a constitutional ban on marriage for same-sex couples should remain silent. Any disagreements should be brought to him personally, he said. The Catholic Church in Minnesota has been a driving force for the anti-same-sex-marriage amendment since it passed onto the 2012 ballot last May.

Nienstedt later sent the text of that speech to priests who were unable to participate in the gathering. Someone in the church recently leaked the text to the Progressive Catholic Voice, a group working for reform within the church. On Thursday, PCV published statements condemning Nienstedt’s speech.

In the speech, Nienstedt told the priests he expects participation in getting the amendment passed from everyone within the church:

It is my expectation that all the priests and deacons in this Archdiocese will support this venture and cooperate with us in the important efforts that lie ahead. The gravity of this struggle, and the radical consequences of inaction propels me to place a solemn charge upon you all — on your ordination day, you made a promise to promote and defend all that the Church teaches. I call upon that promise in this effort to defend marriage. There ought not be open dissension on this issue. If any have personal reservations, I do not wish that they be shared publicly. If anyone believes in conscience that he cannot cooperate, I want him to contact me directly and I will plan to respond personally.

Nienstedt also noted that he’s created teams of “a priest and a married couple” to go into Catholic schools to talk about the amendment.

In a public statement, various members of Progressive Catholic Voice said the Archbishop’s direction is unbelievable.

“When I first read this letter I couldn’t believe that the Archbishop was telling priests and deacons to be silent if they were opposed to the marriage amendment,” said Paula Ruddy, parishioner at Minneapolis’ St. Boniface. “Is one’s position on whether the State constitution should be amended a matter of Church doctrine? How are Catholics to form their consciences if their pastors are not candid with them?”

Ruddy is also a member of the editorial board of the Progressive Catholic Voice.

That group’s editor, Michael Bayly, called the speech problematic.

“The Archbishop’s letter is problematic in many ways,” he said. “As a gay man, I find it particularly offensive that he can’t even bring himself to name gay and lesbian people. We’re simply a ‘minority’ seemingly out to destroy the church and civilization. Such an absurd caricature would be funny if not for the hurtful and damaging consequences to individuals, couples and families resulting from the Archbishop’s anti-marriage equality activism.”

Minnesota’s Catholic hierarchy has come under intense scrutiny over its support for the anti-gay constitutional amendment.

In the run-up to the 2010 gubernatorial election, the church sent out approximately 400,000 DVDs and mailings urging Catholics to vote for Republican Tom Emmer, the only candidate in the race who opposed marriage equality for same-sex couples and a staunch Catholic.

The campaign, paid for by an anonymous donor and produced by the Knight of Columbus, sparked protests against the church.

More recently, the Archdiocese’s lobbying wing, the Minnesota Catholic Conference, has joined with the National Organization for Marriage and the Minnesota Family Council to form the Minnesota for Marriage Coalition, a group dedicated to passing the amendment in November.

Complete Article HERE!

Posted on

Church’s response to abuse not good enough for some

Ten years after revelations of clergy sexual abuse rocked the Catholic Archdiocese of Boston, victims of the scandal said yesterday that they remained unmoved by Cardinal Sean P. O’Malley’s plea for forgiveness.

Instead, victims and advocates reacted to O’Malley’s written retrospective on the crisis with a demand that the church do more to make survivors confident that abusive clerics will be punished and that future cases will not be shrouded in secrecy.

“The church has failed miserably, miserably, miserably,’’ said Bernie McDaid, 55, of Peabody, who was abused in the late 1960s in Salem.

“Nothing has been done [except] whatever the court has made them do,’’ he said. “I’m so hurt by all this.

“After Penn State erupted, it put it right back in my face,’’ McDaid said, referring to a string of abuse charges filed recently against a former assistant football coach at the university.

According to O’Malley’s report, the archdiocese has settled about 800 clergy sexual abuse accusations, is providing care to about 300 abuse survivors at any given time, and has given training in identifying and reporting suspected abuse to nearly half a million children and adults.

Those adults include priests and candidates for ordination, O’Malley said.

The screening process, he said, has been made “the strongest possible, with particular attention to any issues related to child safety.’’

The archdiocese conducts more than 60,000 criminal background checks a year on priests, teachers, volunteers, and other people working with children, according to the report, “Ten Years Later – Reflections on the Sexual Abuse Crisis in the Archdiocese of Boston.’’

Although such work is a step forward, victims and advocates said, they question whether the church would have confronted abuse without the pursuit of news organizations and the persistence of survivors who went public with their pain.

The report from the archdiocese marked the 10th anniversary this week of the Globe’s publication of the first of a series of articles that reported a widespread pattern of covering up abuse in the archdiocese.

“I’m very underwhelmed,’’ said Terence McKiernan of BishopAccountability.org, a Waltham-based website that maintains records on priests accused of sexual abuse.

The cardinal, said McKiernan, president of the website, “basically recycles the usual claims that we’ve heard a lot already, that they’ve experienced a learning curve, that they really didn’t understand the situation.’’

Although background checks and increased awareness are welcome, McKiernan said, “it shows not so much that the church wants to do the right things here, but that they’ve been forced to do the right thing.’’

Questions about the archdiocese’s enthusiasm for the task were echoed by Phil Saviano, 59, of Roslindale, who founded the New England chapter of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests.

The changes outlined by O’Malley, Saviano said, are “basic, common-sense procedures that any organization that has a lot of contact with children would take.’’

“It’s probably good for him to enumerate the things they’ve done,’’ he said, “but they’re not things that are that remarkable. I don’t think it’s anything to brag about.’’

Although Saviano was abused in the 1960s by a priest outside Worcester, he said he has worked with many victims of abusive priests from the Boston Archdiocese.

“Every step they’ve taken, they’ve done it begrudgingly,’’ Saviano said of the church.

Saviano and McKiernan cited O’Malley’s release of the names of 159 accused clerics in August as an example of half-steps to address the crisis.

A review by the Globe showed that 70 accused clerics had not been listed.

The cardinal said they had been left off the list because they belonged to religious orders or had been transferred to Boston from other dioceses.

“That excuse is really lame, because if you’re a 10-year-old kid and a priest is assaulting you, you’re not going to ask if the priest is a diocesan priest or a Jesuit or Franciscan that’s been assigned to the parish,’’ Saviano said. “The experience is the same.’’

O’Malley, however, said yesterday in the report that the crisis and its aftermath have been his top concerns.

“Since the time I was named archbishop of Boston in July of 2003, our highest priority has been to provide outreach and care for all the survivors of clergy sexual abuse and to do everything possible to make sure this abuse never happens again,’’ O’Malley said.

“As an archdiocese, as a church, we can never cease to make clear the depth of our sorrow and to beg forgiveness from those who were so grievously harmed,’’ he said.

O’Malley acknowledged that “one effect of the abuse scandal is that many people view a priest’s Roman collar and clerical appearance with suspicion.’’

Acknowledging that the “the task is never complete,’’ O’Malley also said he hoped that the church’s response would persuade Catholics to return to the church.

In addressing the “spiritual dimension,’’ O’Malley said, the church has held special services in parishes hit particularly hard by the crisis.

“It is our prayer that by seeing the response of the church and by viewing the issue in its proper context, all those who have been away will return to join with us, to make the church stronger and always a safe place for all people,’’ he said.

Ann Hagan Webb, a psychologist from Wellesley abused by a Rhode Island priest from the late 1950s through the mid-1960s, said the report seemed disingenuous.

“It really looks like more of the same,’’ Webb said. “It looks like he’s trying to use the 10th anniversary as a public relations moment. The crisis still continues.’’

McDaid, who founded a group called Survivors Voice, also said he is skeptical of the church’s motivation. “They only go so far every time, because they want to move on,’’ McDaid said.

“What people don’t understand about survivors is that we have a trust issue,’’ said McDaid, who met Pope Benedict XVI in Washington in 2008. “For us to move on, we have to have some degree of faith’’ that those clergy responsible for abuse “will be charged, reeducated, something.’’

“If anything, it’s worse than we ever thought,’’ McDaid said.

To mark the 10th anniversary of the reports on abuse, survivors will gather in Boston beginning tomorrow for a three-day conference to recognize victims who stepped forward to speak of their abuse and others who worked to reveal the extent of the scandal.

The gathering, at the Holiday Inn on Blossom Street on Beacon Hill, is expected to include a demonstration at the Cathedral of the Holy Cross.

Complete Article HERE!

Posted on

Courtroom fury as Catholic bishop walks free just hours after child porn sentencing

Angry scenes erupted inside an Ottawa courthouse Wednesday after a Catholic bishop with an addiction to Internet pornography walked free despite admitting to possessing images of naked boys wearing rosary beads and crucifixes.

Ontario Court Justice Kent Kirkland sentenced Raymond Lahey to 15 months in jail Wednesday, time that he will be credited with already having served, prompting an outburst from one man in the court.

“You’re not a pedophile, you’re a demon, you f–king idiot,” the man yelled at Lahey.

“I’m a survivor, I got to live with it. He’s a f–king demon!” the man shouted, as the judge called for security.

Lahey, who once negotiated a $13-million settlement for victims of child sex abuse by priests as the bishop of Antigonish, N.S., pleaded guilty in May to possession of child pornography for the purpose of importation.

However a leading children’s rights activist said Wednesday that the 15-month sentence did not reflect the seriousness of the crime.

Rosalind Proger of Beyond Borders said Lahey helped fuel a market for child pornography.

“These are real children in these images,” she said from Winnipeg. “They are not drawings. If you look at this sentencing from the perspective of the victims — the children in those images he had — there is a real disconnect between the crime and it ramifications on young lives.

“If the children in those images could have stood in the court room perhaps the sentence would have been tougher.

“No one would be making child pornography if there wasn’t demand and what people like Lahey do is create the demand”, Ms Proger said.

Complete Article HERE!

Posted on

Roman Catholic Church free — but wrong — to reject adoptions by gay parents

COMMENTARY

Roman Catholic bishops are refusing to budge: They’d rather end their adoption services in several states than accept gay parents.

And that’s a real shame. Other religious groups that don’t recognize same-sex marriage have been willing to compromise — a conservative Lutheran adoption agency in Illinois, for instance, agreed to abide by laws against discrimination so it can continue to receive state funding and provide neglected children with homes.

Yet while we argue that the bishops’ priorities are all wrong, Catholic Charities does have the right to opt out of the adoption business. When a private religious organization wants to reject state funding and refuses to recognize gay marriages, it should generally be free to do so.

That’s not to say religious liberties always take precedence. Consider the case of a Christian grad student at Augusta State University in Georgia. She was expelled from the counselor education program when she refused to abide by the American Counseling Association’s Code of Ethics.

Jennifer Keeton sued, arguing that if she were a high school counselor, she should not have to tell students it’s acceptable to be gay. Instead, she indicated that she’d try to convert them to being heterosexual, school officials said.

Like the Catholic bishops, Keeton maintained that gay rights threaten her religious freedom. Yet forcing a public university to grant a degree is a totally different story: Keeton wasn’t simply seeking an exemption for her own religious views. She was expecting the university, and her future clients, to work around her personal beliefs.

That’s asking too much. Which is why an appeals court ruled against Keeton, saying that requiring her to undergo cultural sensitivity training did not discriminate against her viewpoint; it simply reflected the expectation that counselors “refrain from imposing their moral and religious values on their clients.”

It’s a tricky balance: Religious exemptions should exist, as long as the cost to everyone else’s rights is not too great. (A private Catholic hospital can’t deny same-sex couples their lawful visitation and decision-making rights, for example.)

Yet at the same time, Catholic Charities can’t be compelled to provide social services for the state. Gay couples can still go elsewhere for adoptions. They shouldn’t have to, but in the name of religious freedom, they will.

Complete Article HERE!

Posted on

It’s not easy to talk to the Pope

Don’t ya just love it?

When speaking to the Pope, you may not speak about yourself, and when the meeting is over you may not reveal the contents of the face-to-face conversation. In a papal audience or the brief exchange during the “baciamano,” the Pope must not be asked personal questions – only questions of general interest. To approach him, one must await the ceremonial gesture or the prelate who accompanies the Pope, according to the circumstances. For example, in audiences granted to lay and religious personnel of Vatican congregations, universities, ecclesiastical courts, and pontifical councils (sometimes accompanied by family), the prefect or the president, accompanied by the head of the department, introduces each individual to the Pope, just as the superior of the order or head of a community does when they are welcomed by or are welcoming the Holy Father. The order of presentation and the names admitted to the “baciamano” are arranged with the protocol office of the Secretary of State, then with prefecture of the Pontifical House to ensure compliance.

People in canonically irregular situations may not be received, and therefore cannot appear on the list of guests proposed by the Vatican Secretary of State. For example, an audience was denied to an international personality like Sophia Loren because she was civilly married to a man who was still religiously married in the eyes of the Church. The same applies to those who belong to ancient families of apostates, as in the case of the French spouse of the Queen of Denmark.

The entourages of leaders may not include their unmarried partners or their partner’s relatives. In December 2007 this touched off a small diplomatic incident in the Vatican Palaces, when President Sarkozy tried in vain to bring Marysa Bruni Tedeschi, mother of Carla Bruni, with his entourage so she could meet the Pope.

You must not be the first to speak to the Pontiff. The Holy Father is spoken to only in response to his greeting or one of his questions. You should not come too close to his person. If you are invited to breakfast or dinner (where a tailcoat is obligatory and morning dress is forbidden), you may give the Pope a very important gift, such as a valuable work of art or a considerable donation to one of the Pontiff’s charities, or a more simple gift. For example, St. Josemaria Escrivà de Balague once gave a crate of oranges to Paul VI, who had invited him to breakfast in the papal apartment. This contrasts with the protocol that heads of state or government, upon leaving an audience with the Holy Father, publically express praise and appreciation. The Pope will be judged by history, and so it is considered inopportune and improper to praise him excessively, as an Italian Prime Minister, in an extreme gaffe, chose to do after a private meeting with John Paul II in his private library. As with other monarchs, etiquette (and in Spain it is actually a law) prohibits people from touching the Pope.

The relatives and institutional colleagues of a head of state or government are eligible to be a part of his entourage. In great pontifical ceremonies, such as the recent beatification of Karol Wojtyla at Saint Peter’s, only the Head of Delegation may greet the Pope at the end of the event.

What would Jesus do?

Complete Article HERE!

Posted on

Miami’s Catholic leaders accused of running underground gay sex mafia

In disturbing news: One of Florida’s most powerful Catholic leaders is being accused of running the Miami Archdiocese like a gay sexual mafia boss.

Gawker reports that a group of Catholics from South Florida calling their organization Christifidelis had launched a major investigation into the activities of Archbishop Emeritus John C. Favalora. In a report from Christifidelis called “Miami Vice,” the group found that Favalora was part owner of a company that manufactured an aphrodisiac drink and took trips to Key West with “gay associates.”

He also reportedly had sexual relationships with several underlings, including at least two monsignors, a rector, and a former student. The report indicated that many other priests in South Florida are gay and have live-in boyfriends. Some engaged in pedophilia.

Favalora resigned eight months before his 75th birthday, when archbishops routinely retire. Soon after, new archbishop Thomas Wenski was supposedly brought in to “clean up Favalora’s mess,” a source told Gawker. Many of the 35 priests named in the report had either retired or been reassigned.

Complete Article HERE!

Posted on

Monsignor, other clerics to stand trial together

Monsignor William Lynn, former head of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia’s Office for Clergy, and three other current or former priests were ordered Friday to stand trial together for conspiracy to endanger the welfare of children.

Philadelphia Common Pleas Court Judge Lillian Ransom denied defense motions to throw out the conspiracy charges against Lynn and the other defendants in the high profile case involving sexual assaults on two boys in the 1990s.

Revs. Charles Engelhardt, 64, and Edward Avery, 68, and Bernard Shero, 47, a former 6th grade teacher at St. Jerome’s School in Northeast Philadelphia, were charged earlier this year the rape and sexually assault of a 10-year-old boy in 2000.

Another priest, the Rev James Brennan, 47, is charged with raping and sexually assaulting a 14-year-old boy in 1996.

Ransom also ruled that all the defendants would be tried together.

Attorneys for Lynn objected to the judges decision to allow child endangerment charges against the monsignor, saying the law did not apply to his actions. Lynn’s charges stem from assigning the priests to the parishes. His lawyers argued that to endanger a child the accused has to have been supervising the child. Lynn did not supervise any of the children, they said.

Ransom did throw out one conspiracy count against Shero, saying that the lay schoolteacher was not in conspiracy with the priests. Shero is charged with the rape and assault of a boy identified as “Billy,” who said he was sodomized by Shero at St. Jerome’s.

As head of the clergy office, Monsignor Lynn oversaw all priest personnel issues, which included advising Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua and his successor, Cardinal Justin Rigali, on the assignment of priests; interviewing persons who reported sexual abuse by a priests; and overseeing the treatment of clergy known to have abused children.

Posted on

Judge halts release of cardinal’s secret testimony

A judge on Monday halted the release of 1,200 pages of grand jury testimony of a Roman Catholic cardinal relating to his handling of priest sex-abuse complaints in Philadelphia.

Prosecutors filed Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua’s secret testimony from 2003 to support conspiracy charges filed this year against a high-ranking church official, they said in court papers filed Friday.

Monsignor William Lynn, 60, is charged with conspiracy and child endangerment for allegedly transferring priest-predators without warning. Lynn served as secretary for clergy from 1992 to 2004, mostly under Bevilacqua.

The Philadelphia Inquirer reported Sunday that Bevilacqua, the former archbishop, had testified that accused priests “would not be able to function” at new parishes if people were warned of their backgrounds.

Grand jurors found the leader of the Philadelphia archdiocese “excused and enabled” the attacks, and was “not forthright” and “untruthful” during 10 grand jury appearances over eight months, the newspaper reported.

He was not charged because the statute of limitations had run out.

Common Pleas Judge Lillian Ransom put a hold on the further release of the grand jury testimony and other documents filed Friday.

She did not immediately return a call for comment on her action Monday.

Neither side asked to have the documents sealed, and the court docket did not list any such seal.

Lynn is the only U.S. church official ever charged in the sex-abuse scandal for his administrative actions.

Four others — two priests, an ex-priest and a former teacher — are charged in the same criminal case in Philadelphia with raping boys.

The prosecution filings Friday came in response to Lynn’s motion to have the charges dismissed.

The motion will be argued at a key hearing Friday.

Defense lawyers assert that he had no children in his care and cannot therefore be charged with endangering them.

In their 65-page response, obtained by The Associated Press, prosecutors argue the charge can apply to anyone with a duty to protect the general “welfare” of children, and not just those with direct supervision of them.

The archdiocese was charged with protecting children at its schools and parishes, prosecutors
wrote.

They said Lynn and other church officials did not necessarily seek to harm children, but “knowingly put them in harm’s way.”

Lynn’s lawyers declined comment Monday, citing an ongoing gag order in the case.

Posted on

The Fearful Fathers

Angry, isolated, paranoid and ageing, many of Ireland’s ‘ordinary’ Catholic priests feel failed and abandoned by the church hierarchy.

But where were the ‘good priests’ when they were needed?

THE VOICEMAIL was succinct. “Why don’t you, Mister Hoban, f**k off back to Rome with your nuncio . . . Piss off back to Rome, you f**ked-up celibates.”

There were more.

“Keep away from my children, you bunch of perverts,” for example.

Fr Brendan Hoban transcribed these voicemails dutifully, along with other parish messages.

He reveals the wording after some reluctance.

His hesitancy is rooted in the same terror that has sent most priests deep into their parish bunkers this week, the terror of appearing to place the anguish of their own tattered, lonely souls above the suffering of the victims of clerical abuse.

So last week, when the Cloyne report was crashing into the public consciousness, Hoban, the 63-year-old parish priest of Ballina, Co Mayo, would have returned to the empty parochial house, heard the messages and told no one.

Then he would have repaired to his icy livingroom, where the sleeping bag on the armchair and the little plug-in radiator bear testament to the mean summer temperature of the ugly, soulless house he calls home.

Meanwhile, Enda Kenny was launching an unprecedented, historic attack on the Vatican in Dáil Éireann, accusing it of downplaying or “managing” the rape and torture of children “to uphold instead the primacy of the institution, its power, standing and ‘reputation’ ”.

Ireland, he declared, was not Rome but “a republic of laws . . . where the delinquency and arrogance of a particular version, of a particular kind of ‘morality’, will no longer be tolerated or ignored”.

Brendan Hoban wonders what all the fuss is about.

Enda Kenny was saying nothing that Irish priests haven’t been saying for years, he claims, about what the bishops should be doing.

The Irish Times“In effect, he is challenging Rome as distinct from the Irish church. We have no problem living in a democratic republic and I think we have shown ourselves, in the main, as people who have made a contribution to that republic . . . We have been waiting a long, long time for the bishops to say: ‘Let us run our own affairs, rather than tying our hands behind our backs . . .’ ”

But the Taoiseach’s statement does raise a concern, he adds.

“It’s that the Republic could become a cold place for Irish Catholics, as a result of an unnecessary confrontation between church and state. We fear that people would take from Enda Kenny’s statement that this is a dressing-down of priests and bishops, when it’s a dressing-down of Cloyne and Rome, and could be regarded as fodder for other agendas that might be coming up.”

Indeed, the Taoiseach was careful to address the anguish of the “good priests” in his statement: “This Roman clericalism must be devastating for good priests, some of them old, others struggling to keep their humanity, even their sanity, as they work so hard to be the keepers of the church’s light and goodness within their parishes, communities and the human heart.”

For them, their powerlessness has long been confirmed in the heedless appointment of bishops lacking the competence, intellect or independence of spirit to address the spiritual needs of a rapidly evolving republic; bishops such as Cloyne’s John Magee.

“He never worked in a parish, so had no experience of how to run a parish, never mind a diocese. I’m not blaming him for that – it’s back to who appointed him,” says Fr Billy O’Donovan, of Conna, in the Cloyne diocese.

It was Rome that handed the power to John Magee to appoint a head of child protection.

Magee chose Msgr Denis O’Callaghan, then in his late 70s.

Says another priest: “Denis O’Callaghan is an absent-minded professor – and they put him in charge of child protection?”

O’Callaghan is “a man with a great heart”, says Fr Hoban, “but completely disorganised”.

THERE IS CLEARLY a deep anger among ordinary priests.

This is reflected in the 550-plus membership of the fledgling Association of Catholic Priests.

But where were those angry, articulate voices when the damage was being done, when Rome was directing this republic’s affairs and their brothers in Christ were violating the young and vulnerable?

They were where they always were, says Hoban, “trying to do 1,001 things and trying to do them the best they can.”

So does that explain their silence?

There are two “difficulties”, Hoban says.

The first is the mistaken belief that a diocese is run by the bishop and the priests together.

“The fact is we are totally excluded from any say . . . Priests are effectively disenfranchised.”

The other difficulty is loyalty.

Priests live isolated lives.

“The dynamic of our ministry is that friends are very few and far between, but there is extraordinarily strong loyalty among the clergy,” Hoban says.

As well as that, “we were not people who would challenge the status quo. Those who would were weeded out in the seminary.”

Then there is the perennial problem of being “at the bishop’s mercy” in relation to transfers and advancement.

And thus the silence.

Does it all sound a bit self-serving?

“Yes, it’s fair to say that it was self-serving. That lack of moral courage.”

To illustrate this, he describes how a bishop and liturgists have been traversing the Irish dioceses, giving seminars to priests on the controversial new missal translations.

Despite the huge unease there was little or no reaction from audiences.

Then the bishop came to Knock, where he overran his speaking time, leaving no time for the pre-lunch question-and-answer session.

After lunch he launched straight into speaking mode again, whereupon one brave soul stood up and stated that a discussion was needed.

It sounds like the scene where Oliver Twist asks for more food.

Slowly, amazingly, the courageous priest was followed by several more.

“The liturgists were amazed because they presumed there was no opposition, as they hadn’t seen it before,” says Hoban.

Or maybe they hadn’t been reading the papers. It demonstrates what a cold place the church can be for a dissident, says Hoban.

“And we have reaped the whirlwind . . . If a good guy said anything , he said it to the bishop or the parish priest and felt that he’d done what was required. Guys find themselves in situations where their instinct says this doesn’t concern me. Because the message always was: go into your parish; diocesan policy is not your concern.”

In short, blinded by loyalty and conformism, priests trusted too much.

Now, pole-axed by fear, they are overcompensating.

Some have described their fellow clergy as “evil priests” in newspapers; one urges people to boycott the church collections.

The priests’ fear is no longer of the bishops; it’s of the head-spinning no-man’s-land where they now find themselves.

Ageing and isolated, they are operating in hostile territory where their Rome-appointed shepherds are themselves in a state of confused terror – “running around like 27 headless chickens”, according to Fr Tony Flannery – and where the Irish church’s straight-talking totem, Archbishop Diarmuid Martin, has effectively alienated them all.

The isolation and exclusion, compounded by this alienation from their bishops, explains much of the sense of abandonment and fear felt by many priests.

“The feeling is that in their lifetime there will be no end to this,” says Hoban. “For 10 years they’re blue in the face going to courses, seminars, studying guidelines . . . You could call it a high state of paranoia. Then, after all that, something happens in Cloyne and the bottom falls out of it.”

But the paranoia has also infected the priests’ day-to-day pastoral work.

“A woman comes to the door who may have psychiatric problems . . . What do I do? Take a chance by letting her into my front room? There is no doubt that priests have withdrawn, that they’ve become ultracareful and ultrasensitive on how they might be compromised.”

This is the raw terror of men who find themselves accused and deserted.

It’s another reason why so few are prepared to go public about anything.

“There is a phobia among them,” says Hoban. “It’s to do with the fear of accusations, especially ones that go back 30 years. It could be about exposure of an indiscretion from when he was a young priest. Or he could have a nervous disposition and have a phobia of false accusations being made.”

Privately, priests believe that some of those historic accusations are deeply suspect or
“shady”, as one put it.

“But you’re considered guilty from the word go,” say Fr Billy O’Donovan. “You almost have to prove your innocence.”

Accused priests have been publicly stood down, excised instantly from the diocesan directory, left with little or no income, ordered to vacate the parish house in days.

It depends entirely on individual bishops.

“There can’t be a priest in this country who doesn’t think the HSE and the civil authorities shouldn’t be informed as a matter of course ,” says Fr B, a priest who was falsely accused, “but there is also a matter of natural justice.”

Others cite the case of Canon Niall Ahern, who in 2006 was falsely accused of an offence alleged to have occurred some 35 years earlier.

He was back in ministry within months, but not before he had been publicly stood down by his bishop, stigmatised and humiliated in numerous ways.

Even when he was restored to ministry he endured headlines such as “Slur Fr returns to pulpit”.

THE COMPLEXITY of the issue is highlighted by Fr Billy O’Donovan.

He was asked by the diocese to be the official support for the Cloyne priest who was the subject of Bishop Magee’s notorious contradictory letters, one to Rome and a completely different one for diocesan files.

O’Donovan and the accused priest had been friends and their families had been friends.

“But the complexity is that the complainant would also be known to my family,” O’Donovan says.

“The awkwardness would be that the complainant’s family would assume that I’d be on the priest’s side.”

Having vehemently protested his innocence to anyone who would listen, that priest ultimately pleaded guilty in court to indecency charges.

O’Donovan doesn’t comment on the effect of this on him personally, merely saying that he remains in the role of support person.

Another priest speaks to us on condition of anonymity. Fr B, ageing and in poor health, yearns for what he calls “an adult conversation” with senior church figures about his ordeal.

“I’m not looking for money or an apology. I want us to own what happened.”

But, as O’Donovan puts it, the problem is that “of course false allegations have been made, but far too many have been proved”.

Nonetheless, this issue crystallises the abyss that now divides many bishops from their priests. There is no trust of any kind.

“We have the feeling that a facade is being created, such as in the Eucharistic Congress and the new texts, a pretence that all the troubles are now being dealt with and that, from here on, the church will flourish,” says Hoban.

“We are not encouraging people to join us. We know it’s not going to solve any problems. In this diocese there will be eight priests left from an original 34 in 20 years’ time. There is no planning . . . The whole thing is imploding with no recognition of this.”

Many trace the current problems to the abandonment of the Vatican II vision of a church of the laity, with parish councils at the core.

“Mostly it hasn’t happened . . . So when abuse cases arose they were dealt with by clergy, not by mothers and fathers,” says Hoban.

Now the last of the so-called Vatican II priests are disappearing, and the few young men who are replacing them are universally perceived as fiercely traditional and conservative.

Over and over, my conversations with priests return to the calibre of church leaders.

This is why O’Donovan, even during Cloyne’s traumatic week, believes that there is a “far more important week ahead”, meaning the appointment of a new bishop.

“Names being mentioned or guessed at are all right wing, conservative and with a Rome background,” he says.

“We’ve been there before . . . My biggest fear – and it is a real fear – is that someone would be appointed that priests and people will find unacceptable, and that many, priests and people, will walk in that event. We’ve taken enough. We want someone who will talk to us and listen to us.”

Would Irish priests support a breakaway from Rome?

“No,” says Hoban. “What you’re talking about here is the nature of the church. We are deeply unhappy with the competency of the leadership and the drift of Rome. The consultation and transparency we talk about, well, it’s not going to happen in our lifetime. But, to live with yourself, you have to keep saying the things you’re saying. The Association of Catholic Priests is the last fling of the dice.”

Behind all this is the reality of a laity that is voting with its feet.

“That’s the other unspoken thing,” Hoban says. “Our ability to speak to their needs is problematic. We don’t have the ability or the connection to speak out of their world. And that’s the result of celibacy, formation and the loneliness of the ministry.”

Why do they stay? “I’m 63,” Hoban says. “What else do I know? If I was 40 I’d look at things differently. There is a sense now that you’re in it and you’re loyal to it and that you owe something to the people you’ve worked with.”

But he is under no illusion. “Age and oddity go hand in hand. And, as someone said, there’s no one odder than an odd priest. It’s also been said that there is no one deader than a dead priest. People get on with it . . . We’re just functionaries.

“Tomorrow, the reality is that I will do a funeral for a family who have lost a father. That is probably the biggest thing that has happened to them in their lives, and they will remember every detail of this day. And you will do your part to the best of your ability. And at the end of it you’ll be able to look back and say: ‘It matters; I made a difference.’ That’s what the good guys are at.”