Stop the Insanity
In a recent interview with my paper, Martin was quoted from a meeting in Brussels as saying,
"[Pedophilia] is not a result of homosexuality, and nor is it a result of celibacy. We must address paedophilia for what it is. You cannot identify homosexuality with paedophilia. It's a very specific thing...."Of course, this is the same school of thought previously espoused by my archbishop (Cardinal Rigali to you), who said in a 2002 interview that "The majority of pedophiles are not celibate, but married men. These are totally different considerations."
And of course, the CWN crowd wants to tar Diarmuid -- who, by the way, they really don't like -- as being the culprit for the lack of ordinations in the archdiocese of Dublin this year.
We have been over this before:
Diarmuid Martin was installed as coadjutor archbishop of Dublin on 30 August 2003. He succeeded to the archbishopric the following April, 17 months ago....In other words, there goes that Golden Calf again, off for another character assassination....
Correct me if I'm in error, but if there existed a seminary program which lasted but two years (or 17 months), 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 [Diogenes] seems to wish for it. And much good may it do him.
What The Irish Independent and Papabile both note -- but Diogenes, conveniently, 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."
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 slander) -- 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.