POPE Benedict XVI has thrilled the Australian Sisters of Saint Joseph by telling them that Mother Mary MacKillop will be canonised to become Australia’s first saint.
At the Mary MacKillop Chapel in North Sydney this morning, the Pope prayed before the tomb of the Blessed Mary MacKillop, who was beatified in 1995 after Pope John Paul II accepted a claim that she had performed a miracle by curing a woman of cancer.
The congregational leader of the Sisters of Saint Joseph, Sister Anne Derwin, said the Pope referred to Mary’s eventual canonisation.
“He said: ‘She will be canonised, we’re waiting for the miracle’,” Sister Anne explained.
For sainthood, two miracles are required to be accepted, and the final stage of her sainthood now rests on Rome accepting a second claim – this one also a woman who was cured of cancer.
Both women are alive and both have asked for their identities to be kept private.
Although I am neither a Christian nor a Catholic I have had a life time steeped in the traditions of Catholicism and I understand that for the followers of the oldest Christian church Saints and their miracles are a big part of their belief system. And even without a belief in the supernatural I doubt that that one could find a better example of a life devoted to living the tenants of the faith that than of Mary Mackillop. For The sake of her many supporters it would be nice for her to be declared a saint by the Pope. Which sort of segues into the other controversy that has been obsessing the media about the visit of the Pontiff ,namely the sexual abuse of parishioners by some members of the clergy.
While there is no doubt that this vexed issue has been rather badly handled by the church hierarchy even up to fairly recent times I wonder if bitter twisted left will ever stop using it to bash all Catholics and if any apology from the Holy Father will ever be enough. ( I am reminded of the way that the Chinese seem to always want ever more apologies from Japan for Manchuria et al) I have been as strident as any about not letting any kiddie fiddlers off lightly and my opinion does not change if the miscreant is wearing a dog collar or a habit , by all means let’s prosecute any and all individuals against whom a case can be made , and jail those who are found guilty. I think that the problem for the church is not that at all but the desire by some of the victims of these predators to seek monetary compensation. Of course the desire to protect the assets of the church is entirely reasonable from the hierarchy, they clearly want to be able to continue funding their schools, their good works and charities rather than lawyers and court cases. It is also understandable that those who have been abused want the recognition of compensation The question is how can we settle the difference to the satisfaction of all?
No amount of money is going to cure what ails a person who has been violated by someone in a position of trust, so perhaps what is needed is something akin to South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission, where the emphasis is on healing rather that retribution (or restitution). Sadly i think that the opportunistic lawyers would hate that as they would have give up their dream of humbling the church and extracting money blood from her stones.
A tricky one Comrades
Update
Good take on this issue Here
Filed under: Ethical questions, God bothering, Justice, Law, Men and Women, the Law | Tagged: forgiveness, Mary MacKillop, POPE Benedict XVI
1.I have no problem with Mary being declared a Saint. Besides, we St Kilda (AFL) supporters can probably take advantage of that somehow. Maybe get some sponsorship from the Vatican’s bottomless pit of money? Heck, even I’d turn catholic to see the Saints win another flag. And what about canonising Nick Riewoldt if they win it this year? That’d be a miracle!
2. All jokes aside, the church has been incredibly remiss in the way it has handled sexual abuse cases. George Pell comes across more like a CEO applying spin to a damage control situation than someone who is supposed to have compassion for his fellow man. Disgraceful!
3. Criticism of the catholic church over those matters though, is not confined to those of the left. In fact it is totally apolitical.
on your points Ray
1. what I know about that strange southern faith can be written on a postage stamp with a large paint brush but I am very tolerant of the religions of the primitive people of the south
2.I agree that the church has been less that wonderful in the way it has dealt with these problems as I say in my piece, but in his defence some one like Pell has competing imperatives protect both his parishioners and the church it self never an easy task.
3. Agreed that criticism has not just come from the left but it is never apolitical.
So you’re a closet Catholic now as well as a repressed and bitter ex-Lefty?
Funny how things so often boil down to money for you, Iain. Speed cameras, carbon emissions and now this. While I don’t doubt that SOME victims of sexual abuse at the hands of Catholic priests are just doing it for a quick buck, I’m sure the majority just want justice – and answers about why the institutional church has shielded these monsters from exposure and the law. Cover-ups and deceit were the downfall of Peter Hollingworth, the preferred vice-regal of your idol Howard, they may yet be the downfall of George Pell. Only time will tell.
As for Mary McKillop, I don’t care who/what religious zealots choose to worship. Yesterday it was Lourdes or the Shroud of Turin, today it’s Mary McKillop, tomorrow it could well be Iain Hall and his Blessed Beard. There’s about as much logic and reason in religion as there is shit in a meringue.
You are getting to be very boring Mark
As I have repeatedly said I am an atheist.
Peter Hollingswoth was not even a Catholic.
John Howard was Never my idol
I just want to point out to all of the finger-waggers that there is no easy solution to these issues.
Why don’t you lighten up a bit?
Life is short, and I suspect that you are going to bust you boiler soon at the rate you are going.
I thought that the idea of worshipping “Ian Hall and his Blessed Beard” was pretty funny.
I’d probably briefly visit that shrine if it existed. It would certainly pique my curiosity.
Did you realise that my beard trimmings have been known to cure cancer and raise the dead Mondo?
Iain Hall obviously had a humour bypass some time ago. And I know Peter Hollingworth isn’t a Catholic; I never said he was.
As for John Howard, why don’t you come clean about your affection for his strong manly leadership? C’mon Iain, you know you want to.
P.S. Which is worse Iain – kiddy-fiddling priests or “Leftists”?
Well maybe the church needs to appoint some PR bloke (not a priest) to talk about the money side of things. I just find it apalling that George Pell would be more concerned with protecting the church’s assets than protecting those the church claims to care for.
(Btw, I noticed you had another imposter last night. I liked the way you responded to it – “the war is over”. That’s good Iain. Peace, man!)
Mark#7
My sense of humour is fine
if you knew Peter Hollingsworth was not Catholic then you should of known he is not relevent to this post.
neither is John Howard.
#8
about the same
#9
Thanks Ray
Iain, I can assure you that Peter Hollingworth has more in common with the hierarchy of the Catholic church than speed cameras have in common with Guantanamo Bay.
“I just find it apalling that George Pell would be more concerned with protecting the church’s assets than protecting those the church claims to care for”
Spot on, Ray.
I am a Catholic, and incidents like this coupled with ridiculous public statements about how victims of sexual abuse are “grumpily going over old wounds” disgust me.
Not only that, but it seriously tests my faith in the Church.
Pell’s number one priority should always, always be the protection of his parish from his colleagues and those he is responsible for. There is no excuse for putting PR spin and damage control before the needs and requests of those who have been vicitmised by a large, insular organistation they are supposed to be able to trust. No excuse.
No child should have reason to fear those he or she turns to comfort and solice from. Ever. Regardless of whom that is. And if it does occur, the Catholic Church should come out – publicly – and apologise at the very least
We wouldn’t accept a teacher apologising to other staff members as appropriate punishment and amendment, why should we accept it from the Church?
And what you need to realise, Iain, is that some of us are Catholic AND Left-wing. I have no interest in lambasting an organisation of which I am a member. If anything, it hurts me more than it hurts others, because it causes a rift between my faith and my principles.
The thing Is Keri I don’t believe that George Pell is concerned with JUST protecting the churches assets But one of his roles is certainly to do so and as I say in my post as top banana in the Australian church he has a very difficult balancing act to pull off and it is easy to get the impression from the biased media reports that he is all about the money and not interested in the pastoral care of Australian Catholics.
But it is clear to me that for some of the complainants it is all about the money, or getting revenge for alleged wrongs, that 26 year chap is a fine example 26 at the time of the indecent when he had consensual sex with the priest the way the media goes on you think that he had been 6 at the time of the indecent.
Even as a non Catholic I can tell you that your claim here is bollocks which would you as an altruistic person like to see the church devote it’s energies and monies towards> Good works like the hospitals, charities like St Vinnies and schools or to make lawyers rich? that is the balancing act that Pell has to make and as a member of the laity perhaps you should appreciate that even more than I do.
Which is exactly what the Pope has just done
How can you as a Catholic not appreciate that if a miscreant priest does admit his sexual offending to his confessor that the confessor can only impose a penance and do nothing more without violating the sanctity of the confessional?
I’ll say this Keri your faith certainly explains your rigid thinking on some issues (many of the most vehement Commos were Ex Catholics) but read my piece again and you will see that I am not just defending the church blindly I am trying to enunciate that such things are never easy and that no solution will satisfy every one. Why do you think I suggest something allong the lines of the truth and reconciliation commission from South Africa?
How can you as a Catholic not appreciate that if a miscreant priest does admit his sexual offending to his confessor that the confessor can only impose a penance and do nothing more without violating the sanctity of the confessional?
You’ve said some rubbish before Iain but nothing I’ve seen is as reprehensible as this.
Claiming that a “miscreant priest” – in other words a pedophile or one abusing his parishoners – should be protected by other members of the church is the equivalent of suggesting that teachers who molest children should be protected by other teachers. We have mandatory reporting in Australia and anyone who learns of abuse is duty-bound to report it. That goes for teachers, doctors and priests. The organisation is not bigger than the rights of individuals, the confessional is not more important than the law.
Be honest with us Iain… you’re not really an atheist, are you?
Mark you clearly know nothing about how confession , penance and absolution works with in Catholicism now do you?
Now why don’t you be a good little chap and do some research, but the short hand answer is that anything told to a priest even by another priest, in confession, even the most abhorrent sin like kiddie fiddling, is supposed to be never revealed to anyone, ever. Thus it has been for two thousand years and this is even recognised in the secular law as a catholic priest can not be compelled to reveal what has been told to him in the confidence of the confessional.
I do understand the mandatory reporting expectations when it comes to teachers and doctors but you are wrong to think that the Catholic church can be expected to drop the long-standing “seal of the confessional”. and that was the point I was making to Keri.
Finally of course I am an atheist but it seems that I know a little more about Christian faith and dogma than you do matey.
Don’t give me your patronising, condescending bullshit, Hall, I know as much as you about it and probably more. What I am stating is that the confessional SHOULDN’T be used as a secret cloak to protect pedophiles – and you are here arguing on their behalf, hence my query about your religious beliefs.
Are you suggesting to us here, Mr Atheist, that 2000 years of mumbo-jumbo about the confession box overrides the well-being and safety of abused children?
Fortunately some judges have more common sense than Queensland bloggers:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Court-denies-religious-privilege/2005/05/10/1115584961266.html
Getting so wound up this early in the morning Mark?
Your work mates will be in for a hard time today then won’t they?
You claim that now but what you actually said does not match this latest claim at all, I actually agree that such things should not be protected by the confessional but the reality is that they are and such a long standing ethical position is not going to change.I am sure that any priest who has been told of such sins will be horribly burdened by the knowledge and the understanding that he may neither act upon it nor tell another soul about such crimes. I am arguing not for the the sinning paedophiles but for their troubled confessors.
Your example is not about Catholics and pertains to written notes, not an oral confession
Getting so wound up this early in the morning Mark? Your work mates will be in for a hard time today then won’t they?
Fortunately I work with reasonable, sensible people, none of whom come out with this type of crap.
I actually agree that such things should not be protected by the confessional but the reality is that they are and such a long standing ethical position is not going to change.
So you agree that it’s wrong but you’re arguing that it won’t change because it’s centuries old? What a ludicrous paradox. In your mind which is it? Do you join me in condemning the practice and call for the church to end it and for the state to legislate to that effect? Or will you just continue to sit on your hands and cite ‘tradition’?
I am arguing not for the the sinning paedophiles but for their troubled confessors.
How about you argue for neither and show some empathy for the victims? That’s been sadly lacking in just about everything you’ve written thus far.
Your example is not about Catholics
No shit Sherlock. Is your degree from the University of Queensland a ‘bachelor of the bleeding obvious’? Confession and penance are a component of all Christian religions and just because others don’t have a box doesn’t mean the principle you defend here doesn’t exist. Or are you claiming that the Catholic church has primacy and superiority over other Christian religions…?
… and pertains to written notes, not an oral confession
It pertains to written notes made AFTER a verbal confession. Stop splitting hairs.
You mean they will not be a grumpy curmudgeons and you will?
Right or wrong the sanctity of the confessional is an integral part of Catholicism and if you think about it for just a short time you would realise that without the seal of the confessional no one would confess their sins be they mortal or venal. My point is that you see this as a window of opportunity to catch sinners (and bring them to justice) but I am pointing out that the window has very thick iron bars on it and you will not get through that way.
I write about Justice for victims all of the time Mark or here
My family comes from the Anglican tradition and we never had any form of confession, nor do the myriad of other protestant denominations of which I have had personal contact. The notions of confession, penance and absolution are primarily artefacts of the Catholic faith, and their unique ethical problems are in fact the issue at hand here. Yet through laziness or ignorance you seem to think that citing an incidence when a protestant priest creates a document that is considered unprivileged by a court somehow disproves my contention that the seal of the confessional is recognised in law. mate you are dreamen!!!
Mark, splitting hairs is what ethical questions are all about, getting to the heart of things and considering all of the implications in the most minute detail.
Finally I think have worked you out, discovered by a process of deduction, why you are so bitter and twisted. AS a boy you were molested by a priest, who drove too fast and who worked as a paramedic in his spare time.
Am I close?
Finally I think have worked you out, discovered by a process of deduction, why you are so bitter and twisted. AS a boy you were molested by a priest, who drove too fast and who worked as a paramedic in his spare time.
Hmph. I’m not going any further with this debate if you’re going to start playing the man and not the ball. This is when ‘Iain Hall, blogger’ starts to morph into ‘Iain Hall, creepy stalker with too much interest in other people’s personal lives’.
That was a total humour bypass wasn’t it Mark?
No one reading my clear sarcasm that you quote above would think anything other than that I was taking the piss out of you in the fine Australian tradition.Typically you want one set of rules for yourself and another for Moi.
You can play the man by dissing my car, addressing me as “Hall”ect ect, yet when I mock Mark L you go to water. But maybe your tizzy is because I have struck the truth in my attempt to mock you and if that is the case then it is very sad that you have had to endure such experiences and you have my pity and the hope that you can heal and move on with the rest of your life.
So cheerio then.
Why don’t you get off your arse, get a job and make a contribution to society like other normal people in this country, Iain, instead of trotting out the dole-bludger’s mantra of I-work-to-live-not-work-to-live routine*
* That was sarcasm, so it was OK
Mark
Having shown you up on this thread you resort to that hoary old chestnut, which is rather sad and shows me that you truly are as bitter and twisted as I thought.
Now I suggest that you go and play your games elsewhere for a while because you have become very boring indeed.
Iain, I was just being sarcastic. But maybe your tizzy is because I have struck the truth in my attempt to mock you, etc.
And now you’re moderating my comments. Gutless prick.
Well I have put you into moderation Mark Because I think you need it
why are you whining about it when You just said that you were not going to play here ?