Some Stuff On Bennie; And On The Irritations Of Children In Our Society

"What wretched deeds, what ruthless greed, do we disguise as love! It's fair to say that the greater the betrayal, the fuller the sentiments we have to invest our ignoble actions... Are we all the same? Or do some of us at least accept that what we do has no moral justification?"
- Michael Moorcock's novel, "Mother London"

By Charley Brady

I would have liked to comment, in last week's article, on a fine piece that appeared here in Ireland by John O'Keeffe; however I had already sent in my own by the time that I read it.

Very briefly, it commented on the refusal of Pope Bennie to accept the resignation of the two auxiliary Irish bishops who stood down following the Murphy Report into clerical child abuse.

These two - Bishops Raymond Field and Eamonn Walsh - wouldn't in my opinion have resigned at all except that Archbishop Diarmuid Martin who is generally regarded as a decent man would not give them any backing, leaving them with little option. Benedict XVI' s action in not accepting the resignations is a hell of a slap in the face for the Archbishop and has led to the decision being described as " a black day for the Church."

That, very briefly indeed (and it's best not get me started on this topic) is what happened.

As can be imagined there were thousands of words written here on this remarkable decision by the Pope, but the piece that jumped out at me was the one by the aforementioned John O'Keeffe in the Irish Mail on Sunday, where he is described as being "a criminologist and law lecturer" and is currently engaged in research into clerical abuse at Cambridge University. (I assume they're not talking about abuse taking place within those hallowed walls but... sorry, couldn't resist that.) He is also described as being a former seminarian, which makes his views here all the more interesting.

He begins by saying:

"This past week will almost certainly have seen the final nail in the coffin of the Catholic Church in Ireland as we have known it. The confirmation that offers of resignation by auxiliary bishops Eamon Walsh and Ray Field had not been accepted by Pope Benedict XVI has been met with utter incredulity by a scattered faithful that had thought they were now immune to unstable Vatican pronouncements. ..."[the Vatican] neither understands nor cares to understand what real faith means to people.

"It remains a hierarchical state where it is the colour of your robes, not your beliefs, that will ensure your entrance to eternal paradise."

At this point I needless to say was nodding in agreement, with one proviso: a couple of months ago I would have said that anyone believing any kind of religious mumbo jumbo deserved all the disappointments that they got

However, I've since come into contact with a pretty extraordinary lady who is a true believer in a way that I can respect. She also seems to be able to separate the shenanigans of her Church from her faith; and perhaps that compartmentalising is what most Catholics have had to do. Whatever; she finds it a beautiful thing that helps her in her own trials and even a complete doubter like myself must show respect for that.

Mr. O'Keeffe goes onto say that "[the Vatican] considered the matter very carefully over many months with its public relations advisors, and chose to issue its statement in the middle of August, when the news effect would be minimal.

"The faithful need to read this very carefully. Evidentially, the Vatican has never and will never care about what its people do or thinks. Sadly, it has been a sea of corruption for centuries and will continue to be so.

"Specifically, by rejecting the resignations of these two bishops it has told you, the good and true Irish faithful who have stayed by their Church when others would not, that it holds you in the highest contempt.

"Yet, you, the loyal foot soldiers of a Church who's generals hold you in the highest disdain, have in reality seen its disintegration taking place for a number of years."

He also mentions one of my many hang-ups about their handling of this and that is their emphasis on what they call "collective healing". I find this a truly vile notion and extremely offensive to those who are totally blameless in this. These appalling crimes were, after all committed by the clergy, not by the people who worshipped at their altars. It is an amazing piece of Vatican thinking to even attempt to lump in the faithful with the wicked criminals that they trusted.

It reminds me of this nonsense being spouted as they try to justify a Mosque at Ground Zero that says we should practise "inclusion". Well, I wasn't included in it and nor were most people. It was a terrible crime committed by a large group of evil swine that hated Westerners.

And yes, there are many who will quite rightly say that we in the West have hardly been blameless in many cases, but this is one specific act that I am talking about. Our less than blemished record is another days' work. So as with the Church's preposterous idea of collective healing, include me out.

Rather chillingly he adds: "I was a seminarian in the Roman Catholic Church and what I saw made my skin crawl. Slavish, mindless obedience from trainee priests who, if they survived the course, would themselves one day become the intellectual savages they so readily despised in their first few months in the seminary.

"The abused would become the abuser and utter indifference and contempt of the faithful was commonplace among many of those 'men of God' that I encountered.

"Thankfully, I left and converted to the Anglican faith, a church which places little emphasis on those who preach the message but far more on the message itself."

He goes on to say that the Church of Ireland is not without its faults either; but that the issue isn't on those who convert to whatever you're having yourself but on how the followers of Catholicism have continually allowed themselves to be treated in such an appallingly shabby manner.

If I'm misinterpreting Mr. O'Keefe's article then my humble apologies and I'll be offering up a decade of the rosary for that.

His piece appeared in the newspaper mentioned above on the 15th of August and is well worth checking out for anyone interested in this important subject.

This morning I turned to the letters page first because I wanted to see what the reaction to it was and it was in my opinion pretty predictable. Outrage! Horror! How dare he have an opinion that's not ours!

I was reminded of an incident when Sam Peckinpah's "The Wild Bunch" premiered in 1969 and the director found himself physically attacked by a viewer who was screaming: "I'm a pacifist! You ought to be shot for making that film! You ought to be killed!"

Some things never change.

On a more amusing note the other thing that caught my eye this morning and brought a smile to this grumpy old face was the report of something taking place in New York.

I suppose that this is old news to you but I read that a Lily O'Brien's café is being sued by a mother who was asked to leave because she was very publicly breastfeeding her sprog.

For crying out loud, is this nonsense still going on? Having seen such a situation at first hand in a Dublin hotel some years back I have no doubt that there is more to it than the basic facts presented. In that case it was obvious that the lady in question had just decided to make a point. For a start she had picked a lounge during a packed rugby weekend so she was just bound to get a few stares.

Secondly, the staff and management treated her with the greatest respect. First they told her that they had private facilities for breast feeding and when that wasn't good enough they offered her the use of a room. In truth it wouldn't have mattered what they said, the old bag was not for moving.

This is just one example (as is the New York "incident") of these exhibitionist child-obsessed parents who don't give a damn about the rights of mothers. They have to show off their spawn to even those of us who aren't in the slightest bit interested in knowing that they exist.

Recently I was at the brilliant "Toy Story 3" and was prepared in this case to tolerate the kids who were inevitably going to be there. (Although if I had the money I would have arranged to have had a private showing, well away from them.) Thankfully the film was good enough to hold the attention of even the current spate of restless, "Mommy, I'm bored" brats who afflict us everywhere we go.

Unbelievably a couple of idiots two rows in front of me brought in a child who wasn't even one-year-old! What kind of half-wits would do that? Mercifully, the sprog slept through the whole thing but I'm sure that if it had screamed the place down they would have been coo-ing and ahh-ing and maybe singing it a damned lullaby.

Someone, somewhere is saying "I wonder if that bloody grouch has children himself". Well, the answer to that one is a resounding NO! It's bad enough having to look at other people's, are you kidding me?

If I did have, however, you can be damned sure that they wouldn't be running around supermarkets while I was saying in a wheedling little voice: "Stop that now. I won't be telling you again. Now if you don't stop that we're going right home. All right, that's it. Stop that right now."

I can't really blame the kids, though. Did you ever try going into a bar on a Sunday afternoon for a quiet read at the papers? Well, unless you are already hopelessly drunk and feeling mellow, then don't. If you are sober it is a nightmare as adults sit around watching The Match and getting pissed while their little darlings run around screaming at each other.

Then these clowns will complain that little Johnny or Jane is "hyperactive." HYPERACTIVE? Now there's more Spock baloney that is trotted out as an excuse for everything! It wouldn't by any chance be because while the parents are getting sizzled they're trying to keep their little monsters happy by giving them five Club Oranges, a bucket load of Coca-Cola and a ton of crisps?

Jeez, they might as well open a giant bag of sugar and stick their kids' snouts in it!

No, I don't want to see this and I sure as hell don't want to be sitting next to some dozy show-off when she planks a breast out and announces that dinner is served.

Adults have rights too, you know.

Hope to see you all again next week.

Same bat-time!

Same bat-channel!

PS. Have you ever noticed how well children are behaved when they are taken ten-pin bowling, or is that just here? Or do bowlers just make better parents? I think that there's a need for an article on "The Positive Aspects of Bowling in Our Society."

You can reach Charley at chasbrady7@eircom.net