Dublin's Archbishop Diarmuid Martin refuses to endorse Church teaching again

The Archbishop of Dublin was asked by Vincent Brown - "do you think child sexual abuse is a moral
evil?" to which the Archbishop replied, after several attempts, and repeating of the question, "I have no
idea".

Well, no, that didn't actually happen - what the Archbishop said was "I would kill anyone who
touched the children of friends of mine" which is rather strong for a bishop but good punter friendly
language to get the masses on side before the reports come out and makes clear that the Archbishop
recognises sin when he sees it.

The Archbishop of Dublin was then asked by Vincent Brown - "do you think homosexual acts are a
moral evil?" to which the Archbishop replied, after several attempts, and repeating of the question,
"I have no idea".

This time it did actually happen.

So for all the talk of anthropology, caring relationships, uniqueness of marriage, it comes down to that
- a reluctance by a Catholic bishop to confirm and deliver basis Catholic teaching. Of course he
could nuance it. Of course he could point out that homosexual sins aren't worse than other sins.
But if he can't bring himself to confirm the sinfulness of the act, where can he go from there?

Perhaps he was too busy in his head trying to think how to answer the question as to whether he
wanted to remain as Archbishop of Dublin or return to Rome.

Video of Vincent Brown show on TV3 on Jan 7th 2008.
Dr Martin's replies when asked about moral status of homosexual acts is in the last quarter of the interview.

In the course of the television interview, Archbishop Diarmuid Martin is given a splendid chance to witness to the integrity and truth of Catholic teaching. So here he is in action:

Interviewer: You can say yes or no to my question: do you think that people -- homosexual people -- who engage in homosexual sexual relations are engaged in an intrinsic moral evil?

Archbishop: I would not make a judgment, again, on ... on ... on ... on ... on individual people. I have no idea.

Out of the closet, Gary O'Sullivan

I notice that editor of The Irish Catholic, Gary O'Sullivan has a letter in The Irish Times in support of Diarmuid Martin on the issue of gay marriage/civil unions/ or relationships of depenency - whatever you want to call it.
I believe that Gary O'Sullivan has his own personal reasons for supporting Dr Martin's stance on the legalisation of gay unions - no sorry, relationships of dependency.

Irish Times Letters page

Madam, - Archbishop Diarmuid Martin (November 28th) seeks to clarify the interpretation of remarks he made on marriage and civil unions at a recent Maynooth press conference, which I attended.

Bishops and archbishops can all too easily go down the road of condemnation when speaking out on the issues of the day and know there will be no misunderstanding of their position. To be fair to Archbishop Diarmuid Martin, he does try to take the harder road in his public utterances as advocated by Pope Benedict, which is to promote Christianity as a positive option.

It would be a shame if this approach and the merits of the Archbishop's argument were lost because of a misunderstanding of the nuanced position he was trying to articulate.

Dr Martin, while promoting the positives for society of the Christian view of marriage, was also striving to inform those who misinterpret the church's position as uncaring and unsympathetic. The Church does care about the rights of a variety of people in caring and dependent relationships. This position is largely lost in the current debate on marriage and civil unions.

To ensure clarity in future Maynooth press conferences may I suggest to the bishops that the gatherings be less of a sprint to the finish and that they stay behind to meet reporters - who make the effort to travel out to Maynooth - and clarify any queries. - Yours, etc,

GARRY O'SULLIVAN,
managing editor,
The Irish Catholic,
Bluebell,
Dublin 12.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/letters/2008/1129/1227828909140.html

A quick websearch shows that Garry O'Sullivan was once communications officer for the Jesuits in Ireland.
This order has had particular problems with theological liberalism and a culture of homosexuality among a number of its
members.
It is sad to read in journals like Inside the Vatican the high number of active homosexuals active within the Jesuit order.
I find it quite sad to see how far the Society of Jesus in Ireland has fallen. It used to have a huge number of vocations, now it has virtually none.

Time for Diarmuid Martin to preach Church's faith or leave

Up until this point the Archbhishop of Dublin, Diarmuid Martin has talked about 'relationships of dependency' and non-maritial types of intimacy. He has failed to publicly support the Catholic Church's teaching on the immorality of homosexual acts or explain why the Church is opposed to the legalisation of gay civil unions. This is at best a dereliction of duty and at worst a scandal.
Given his refusal to do so over the last four years, I propose it is time to pray that Pope Benedict XVI will promote Diarmuid to a position of absolutely no consequence in the Vatican where he can do less damage than he is doing in Ireland at present.

D Martin - Relationships of Dependency and Intimacy

In The Irish Times Wednesday, November 26, 2008
in article entitled, 'Bishops differ over emphasis on civil unions' It stated:

'He [D Martin] noted that while "the Catholic Church is in favour of marriage, it is not against other forms of intimacy". He added that "consistently, all Christian churches emphasise the uniqueness of marriage based on the complementarity of the sexes", but they addressed other forms of intimacy on other bases.'

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2008/1126/1227486583451.html

[Marriage is for the intimacy between a man and woman.
Other forms of intimacy - such as between two men or two women. Other forms of intimacy - such as homosexual intimacy.]

This was Diarmuid's letter a few day's later. Friday November 28th Nov 2008:

Archbishop and civil unions

Madam, - I have received a number of calls from people who feel that my remarks, as presented in your report of November 26th, "Bishops differ over emphasis on civil unions", seem to indicate that I do not accept Catholic teaching on marriage.

I was responding to a series of questions from journalists regarding a variety of aspects of the forthcoming Civil Partnership Bill. It is possible that the manner in which my different remarks appeared may have given rise to false interpretation.

While saying that I might have addressed the theme differently, I did clearly say that I was supportive of the basic content of Cardinal Brady's position on the Bill and of his comments at the recent Céifin conference.

Above all my remarks wished to stress that the Christian teaching on marriage, rather than starting out from negative criticisms, is a positive endorsement of the unique and irreplaceable contribution to society made by the family based on marriage, that is, on the mutual and exclusive love of husband and wife.

While stressing, as I have consistently done, the Christian teaching on the mutuality of the sexes as fundamental to the understanding of marriage, I am fully aware of the need to protect the rights of a variety of people in caring and dependent relationships, different to marriage.

Unfortunately, some members of the public and some public commentators seize on such comments and concern as an opportunity to say that I advocate positions in conflict with Catholic teaching. For my part, I regret if my comments may have appeared unclear. On the other hand, the contrived polemic of such commentators does little to promote marriage and its value to society.

- Yours, etc,
Archbishop DIARMUID MARTIN, Archbishop's House, Drumcondra, Dublin 9.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/letters/2008/1128/1227739086753.html

This follows on from his earlier statements in November 2004:

Irish Prime Minister and Dublin Catholic Archbishop Back Homosexual Spousal Rights

DUBLIN, November 16, 2004 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Irish homosexual activists who came to Canada to 'marry' and are currently challenging Ireland to grant them spousal inheritance rights have garnered support from Irish Prime Minister Bertie Ahern and shockingly from Dublin's Catholic Archbishop Diarmuid Martin.

Commenting on the case to the Irish state television RTE, Ahern said, "They say: 'We want more equality and we want to be treated fairer.' I agree with that. I totally agree with that. These people who are in relationships which are not illegal, they're not immoral, they're not improper. We should try to deal with some of the issues they have to surmount in their daily lives. And I think that's the fairest, caring and Christian way to deal with this."

Archbishop Martin was questioned by the Irish Independent newspaper on Ahern statements calling granting the spousal rights the "fairest" and "Christian way to deal with this."

Archbishop Martin told the Irish Independent: "I recognise that there are many different kinds of caring relationships and these often create dependencies for those involved. The State may feel in justice that the rights of people in these relationships need to be protected."

He continued: "I have a wide range of relationships in mind. I do not exclude gay relationships but my main concern is with all caring relationships where dependencies have come into being."

He said the rights "would primarily be inheritance and property."

LifeSiteNews.com contacted the Archdiocese of Dublin to confirm the remarks. "The substance of his comments are accurate," Paul Tighe, spokesman for the Archdiocese of Dublin told LifeSiteNews.com.

Other bishops commenting on such situations have expressed opposition to such spousal rights noting that current provisions allow for wills and private legal arrangements to bequeath or share property between individuals.

Pope John Paul II has made statements on the recognition of spousal rights. In his famous November 4, 2000 address to the world's politicians the Pope counseled them, "with regard to all laws which would do harm to the family, striking at its unity and its indissolubility, or which would give legal validity to a union between persons, including those of the same sex, who demand the same rights as the family founded upon marriage between a man and a woman." He warned "Christian legislators may neither contribute to the formulation of such a law nor approve it in parliamentary assembly, although, where such a law already exists, it is licit for them to propose amendments which would diminish its adverse effects."

And what pray tell - was the media reaction to this statement by D Martin. Yip, wild cheering at his support for gay civil unions:

See the Irish Times of Tue 11 Nov 2004
Archbishop backs rights for same-sex couples

"The Catholic Archbishop of Dublin appears to have given his backing for the legal rights of co-habiting couples, including same-sex couples, to be addressed.The Archdiocese of Dublin today stood over the comments made by Dr Diarmuid Martin but refused to confirm whether they constituted a call on the Government to take action on the issue."

What do you think? Everyone misundertands Diarmuid's support for Gay civil unions or is it a case of 'The World will safely judge.' The Irish Times, The Irish Independent and the people who read his words understood what D Martin said very well.

Dublin's Archbishop Diarmuid Martin supports Gay Civil Unions

Dublin's Diarmuid Martin is still refusing to endorse the Catholic Church's opposition to the legalisation of Civil Unions for homosexuals.

His comments in the last few weeks have angered a large number of lay people (he says he has received a lot of phone calls about his earlier comments) and forced him lament peoples' misunderstanding of what he said.

People understand very well what he means.

He is all in favour of the legalisation of Gay Unions, but he wants to support it by use of dog whistles and ambiguous phrases. What he consistently refuses to do, is to say, in union with the Catholic Church - that homosexual acts are immoral and that he is opposed to the legalisation of civil unions. He just has to say this and all mis-understandings are wiped away immediately.

We read today that he has spend almost half a million during up the Archbishop's Palace for himself, and that he's been out of the Diocese for 53 days since August.

That old joke about 'St Martin de Tours' appears to be correct after all.

But the most important issue is the Archbishop's attempt to undermine the Catholic position on marriage, the very fine defense of marriage by Cardinal Sean Brady.

For this alone - I think it's time for Diarmuid to be promoted by the Vatican to a position where he can do less damage that at present.

In Mid December, Archbishop Martin had the following letter in The Irish Catholic:  

Dear Editor,

I am surprised at the comments of your columnist, Mr David Quinn, (Dec 4) on my remarks at a Press Conference at the conclusion of the Winter meeting of the Irish Episcopal Conference and in my subsequent letter to the Irish Times.

On both occasions I clearly indicated that I was [sic] "was supportive of the basic content of Cardinal Brady's position on the Bill and of his comments made at the recent Ceifin conference", yet Mr Quinn continues to insinuate that in my comments I was placing my myself at odds with those of Cardinal Brady.

I spoke of the contribution of "the family based on marriage, that is, on the mutual and exclusive love of husband and wife" as "unique and irreplaceable". I fail to understand how Mr Quinn could interpret as being "remarkably conciliatory" to any Government which would propose to accord rights belonging to marriage to civil unions.

The debate about civil unions is precisely about a situation in which the mutuality of the sexes is no longer seen as something anthropologically unique and irreplaceable, but simply a cultural construct which can be adapted and changed. That is the central issue which the Church should be addressing in her catechesis and in her witness towards society.

Yours etc.
+Diarmuid Martin

Poor Diarmuid, always seems to be mis-understood doesn't he.
Here's another occasion, asked was missing Sunday Mass a mortal sin, Martin refused to say yes or not, but gives a definition of a mortal sin instead.

Archbishop 'disappointed'

Independent.ie
Thursday March 03 2005

Sir - The Archbishop of Dublin, Dr Diarmuid Martin, wishes to express his disappointment at the manner in which a recent newspaper interview was taken up in a subsequent article in your paper under the heading 'Missing Sunday Mass is not a mortal sin, says Archbishop'.
In the original interview with another paper, Archbishop Martin addressed the situation of people who had drifted from Church practice, but who still maintained bonds with the Church through prayer and occasional Church attendance. The Archbishop would not be drawn into answering questions about the subjective dispositions of conscience of individuals. In no place did he challenge or deny the current norms of Church teaching and discipline on Mass attendance, as some have interpreted the headline in the Irish Independent.

Indeed the Archbishop clearly recalled the centrality of active membership of the Eucharistic community and attendance at Mass each Sunday.

This matter again indicates the difficulty the Archbishop increasingly encounters in attempting to address questions of Church life, which are complex in their nature and require to be examined in a sensitive manner. The Archbishop sincerely feels a mature debate on Church life is not served when genuine attempts to address these issues in a receptive manner are responded to with superficial newspaper headlines. Archbishop Martin remains genuinely committed to fostering such a debate.


Annette O Donnell,
Director of Communications, Archdiocese of Dublin

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/letters/archbishop-disappointed-267129.html

A response to article in The Irish Independent entitled:

Missing Sunday Mass is not a mortal sin, says Archbishop

By David Quinn Religious Correspondent

Wednesday February 23 2005

'NOT going to Mass every week isn't necessarily a mortal sin, the Archbishop of Dublin, Dr Diarmuid Martin, has said.
Archbishop Martin said there are many people who don't practise "but who may be of deep faith", and that an action is only a mortal sin if a person knows what they are doing is gravely wrong. He said this would rarely be the case "with many of the people who don't go to Mass".

Dr Martin said in a newspaper interview that although Mass and the Eucharist are still central aspects of the faith for Catholics, a new model of the Irish Church was emerging which would see regular, occasional and very sporadic church attendance. He said: "There are many, many instances of people who don't practise, but who may be of deep faith."

He also said it is not necessarily a mortal sin not to go to Mass on Sundays and Holy Days.

Dr Martin said: "I don't go judging individual people - a mortal sin is always a conscious decision on the part of somebody to do something which is seriously wrong.

"And I don't think that is the case with many of those who don't go to Mass."

Reacting to Archbishop Martin's comments, several priests stressed that although they agreed with him that Mass attendance can be over-emphasised, it was still very important to go in order to remain a part of the wider Catholic community.'

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/missing-sunday-mass-is-not-a-mortal-sin-says-archbishop-275564.html