How many priestly ordinations did the Archdiocese of Dublin have this year?
That's right, folks. This year was "the first in the history of the diocese," according to Archbishop Diarmuid Martin, "that we have not had a priestly ordination."
Of course we have to take into consideration the quality of our newly ordained and not simply the quantity. We are an Easter People.
Ummmm... How many ways can you say "ridiculous"?
Diarmuid Martin was installed as coadjutor archbishop of Dublin on 30 August 2003. He succeeded to the archbishopric the following April, 17 months ago. On both occasions, this was not due to hostile liberal takeover or by decision of Roger Mahony, but by the free choice and decree of Pope John Paul II, known in some quarters as "The Great."
Correct me if I'm in error, but if there existed a seminary program which lasted but two years, it'd get called on the carpet anon by Rome and told to bulk up and stop being so damn cursory. We don't do hydroponic formation, people -- but the attitude expressed above seems to wish for it. And much good may it do you.
If the screed is to be believed, an archbishop in office for 17 months is to be blamed for the lack of yield from a four-year formation program -- a lack of entrances which would've occured in... um... 2001, at which time Diarmuid was still in Geneva as the Holy See's permanent observer to the United Nations there... again, not by hostile liberal takeover, or by decision of Roger Mahony, but by the free choice and decree of Pope John Paul II, known in some quarters as "The Great."
What The Irish Independent and Papabile both note -- but Diogenes, conspicuously, does not -- is this hard number: "four new candidates for the [Dublin] diocese have entered Maynooth [the Dublin seminary] this year, bringing the total to 15, the highest in almost 10 years."
Hmmmmm... pretty convenient omission from the bile, eh?
In reality, if you're going to place the blame somewhere -- because there is no such thing as an 18-month timetable from discernment to ordination (except, it seems, for purposes of ideological combat) -- it seems to belong more to Des Connell (archbishop from 1990-2004) than to Diarmuid.
But, oh, wait -- Connell "publicly criticised the changes in church architecture and liturgy which followed the Second Vatican Council" (Sunday Business Post, 4 March 2001). For good conservatives to hold Des responsible for anything bad would not serve The Golden Calf well at all. So why not just flub the facts and tar the progressive -- misleading an audience, scoring points for the agenda and exonerating a conservative soul-buddy in the process?
Apparently, according to this logic, Diarmuid doesn't deserve credit for the spike in vocations under his own leadership, while it's open season to bash him for his predecessor's lack of recruitment results. Call me naive, but I don't get it.
For the record, I'm not seeking to bash Connell, who I think was a good man -- a brilliant man -- who was misunderstood because he lacked communication savvy. But I didn't raise the question, and if you're going to set up a situation where someone gets blamed, at least be accurate about where the responsibility lies as opposed to exploiting and evading the truth.
Sorry to rain some reality and logic on the Hate Parade, but that's what I do....
And to think that these same cats want to accuse me of "veering close to libel or slander"? Dio mio!