The Twittering Pope

New Year Prayer

A New Year Prayer

Holy Father,

God of our yesterdays, our today, and our tomorrows.

We praise You for Your unequaled greatness.

Thank You for the year behind us and for the year ahead.

Help us in Your new year, Father, to fret less and laugh more.

To teach our children to laugh by laughing with them.

To teach others to love by loving them.

Knowing, when Love came to the stable in Bethlehem, He came for us.

So that Love could be with us, and we could know You.

That we could share Love with others.

Help us, Father, to hear Your love song in every sunrise,

in the chriping of sparrows in our backyards,

in the stories of our old folks, and the fantasies of our children.

Help us to stop and listen to Your love songs,

so that we may know You better and better.

We rejoice in the world You loved into being.

Thank You for another new year and for new chances every day.

We pray for peace, for light, and for hope, that we might spread them to others.

Forgive us for falling short this past year.

We leave the irreparable past in your hands, and step out into the unknown new year knowing You will go with us.

We accept Your gift of a new year and we rejoice in what's ahead, depending on You to help us do exactly what You want..

I say it again, we rejoice!

In Jesus name,

Amen.

Montreal deacon who was bishops' spokesman faces child porn charges

William Kokesch, a Montreal permanent deacon who served almost 10 years as a communications director for Canada's Catholic bishops, has been charged with producing and distributing child pornography.

On Thursday, Kokesch, 65, was released on bail after posting a $10,000 cash bond. The judge ordered him not to use computers or be around anyone under 18 without adult supervision.

The married father of five grown children is scheduled to appear in court Feb. 27. 

Information revealed during a bail hearing was placed under a publication ban at the request of Kokesch's lawyer.

Constable Danny Richer, Montreal Police Service spokesman, said several people have contacted the police with information concerning the case since news broke of Kokesch's arrest Dec. 21. 

Investigators have met with those people and "are trying to analyze the new information," he said.

On Dec. 21, after police received a complaint from the public, they searched Kokesch's church office at St. Edmund of Canterbury Parish in Beaconsfield and his home in Pointe-Claire, Richer said. 

They discovered more than 2,000 child porn images on a computer and other information devices they seized in the search, Richer said.

Kokesch, who was ordained to the diaconate in 1981, spent the Christmas holidays behind bars.

The Montreal Archdiocese removed Kokesch from "all ministry and pastoral activity" upon learning of his arrest, according to a Dec. 22 statement.

"We wish to assure all those concerned by this event that we are keeping them in our prayers, and we urge everyone to have confidence in and respect for the judicial process and to await its conclusions," said the archdiocesan statement.

Kokesch had extensive media experience, starting from his work as a reporter for the Montreal Gazette in the 1970s, then as a radio reporter. From 1995 to 2005, he worked as English sector communications director for the CCCB, fielding many of the questions about the sexual abuse crisis in the early 2000s.

Kokesch lost his job at the CCCB in early 2005 during a major restructuring of the Ottawa secretariat.

In recent years, he operated an independent communications company serving primarily charities and churches.

Reporters descended on St. Edmund's Parish the weekend of the arrest, but few parishioners would consent to being interviewed and then only without releasing their names. 

Most expressed disbelief and shock; others said they were certain he did not abuse children from the church.

Eric Durocher, Montreal archdiocesan spokesman, told the QMI news agency that Kokesch coordinated the church's altar service and worked closely with the parish priest. 

Durocher said "as far as we know (Kokesch) was never alone with children; there was always another adult present."

Italian priest blames women's 'provocative' clothing for domestic violence

An Italian priest has provoked outrage after putting up an article that said women were partly to blame for encouraging domestic violence by failing to clean their houses and cook properly and for wearing tight and provocative clothing.

'Let's ask ourselves. Is it possible that men have all gone mad at one stroke? We don't think so,' says the text written by Corsi.

 

Italian media reported that parish priest Piero Corsi fixed a text to the bulletin board of his church in the northern village of San Terenzo di Lerici, which said women should engage in "healthy self criticism" over the issue of femicide, or men murdering women. 

Domestic violence against women is a serious problem in Italy although a report by a United Nations mission in June said it was "largely invisible and underreported".

The text, posted on a website by a conservative Catholic named Bruno Volpe, attacked pornography and erotic television advertising but said women shared the blame for "provoking the worst instincts, which then turn into violence and sexual abuse".

"Let's ask ourselves. Is it possible that men have all gone mad at one stroke? We don't think so," said the text, which was reproduced in several newspapers.

"The core of the problem is in the fact that women are more and more provocative, they yield to arrogance, they believe they can do everything themselves and they end up exacerbating tensions," it said.

"How often do we see girls and even mature women walking on the streets in provocative and tight clothing?"

"Babies left to themselves, dirty houses, cold meals and fast food at home, soiled clothes. So if a family ends up in a mess and turns into crime (a form of violence which should be condemned and punished firmly) often the responsibility is shared," it said.

The mayor of Lerici, Marco Caluri, said on Thursday the article was "astonishing and deeply offensive" and the bishop of La Spezia ordered it to be taken down, saying it contained "unacceptable opinions which are against the common position of the church".

A third of women in Italy had reported being victim of serious domestic violence, a UN report citing data from Italian statistics agency ISTAT said.

It said that as many as 127 women had been murdered by men in 2010, often as a result of "honour, men's unemployment and jealousy by the perpetrator".

Maria Gabriella Carnieri Moscatelli, the head of Telefono Rosa, an association that helps the victims of violence, said an apology subsequently offered by Corsi was not sufficient.

"I thank the bishop who had the paper taken down but I'm still not satisfied because I think someone needs to talk to this person and understand why he has these attitudes," she told SkyTG24 television.

"I think he needs to make a deeper examination of his conscience that goes beyond apologies," she said.

Corsi denied reports that he intended to resign as priest and in an interview published on the web site of the weekly Oggi, he said he would be carrying on with his work.

"After everything that's happened, which has certainly been well beyond what I intended or expected, I think there's need for calm, rest and silence to respond with the serenity and harmony required to carry on," he said.

David Quinn: The abuse is getting worse – we all need to show some tolerance

LAST week, I was doing a bit of Christmas shopping in the Henry Street area when a man recognised me and in a burst of anger condemned me as a "Catholic toerag".

I replied, "Happy Christmas", or words to that effect and kept going.

If this had happened in Belfast, I suppose it would be regarded as a 'sectarian incident'. How should we regard such a thing in Dublin?

I haven't a clue whether this man is in any way religious or not. I'm guessing he isn't. Is it possible for someone who isn't religious to be 'sectarian', or else its moral equivalent? Of course it is.

In a similar vein, a few months ago I received a phone call from someone who attacked my "f**king Catholic religion" and said I should be "castrated and hung up on O'Connell Street".

Emails attacking my religious beliefs arrive in my mailbox from time to time, especially when a story is in the news that has people angry at the church again, and therefore angry at anyone who is a publicly known Catholic.

And, needless to say, there is a huge amount of this sort of stuff on the likes of Twitter and the various politics websites.

A freelance producer and presenter called me a "poisonous c**t" for saying Labour is pro-abortion.

Someone else described me as a "nasty woman-hating scumbag". I have also been described as a "snivelling s**t", "one weird freak", and "the most mendacious and unpleasant commentator out there".

Social media is bad at the best of times, but it was much worse than usual after the Savita Halappanavar story broke.

Even though we don't yet know exactly why she died, it didn't stop everyone rushing to judgment, and anyone who suggested that maybe our law on abortion had nothing to do with her death was regarded as fair game.

Senator Ronan Mullen, who is also against abortion, got it even hotter and heavier than I did. Several clowns joked on Twitter that they'd like to crucify him. One person said he'd bring along some rusty nails and they'd throw a party.

I've never made much of an issue of this kind of thing before, simply because I think that when you're in the public eye you have to expect your share of cranks.

But a number of things made me decide to write about it today. 

One is the fact that pro-choice commentators and politicians have been trying to make political capital out of the abuse they've received from abortion opponents.

Some of this abuse does need to be exposed, even allowing for the fact that politicians and commentators have to accept a certain amount of abuse as part and parcel of being in the public eye.

However, let's not pretend that the abuse is all coming from one direction. In fact, on social media, the abuse comes predominantly from the Left because when it comes to politics, social media is dominated by the Left. Go on the likes of Twitter and thejournal.ie and see for yourself.

Once you oppose the Left on anything you can expect to be denounced as a "woman-hater", a "homophobe", a "'fundamentalist" or a "racist" because many on the Left believe all opposition to their agenda is motivated by bigotry, pure and simple.

This is an appallingly reductionist view of politics and is the exact equivalent of religious people believing that anyone opposed to them is opposed to the will of God.

The second thing that has made me write about the abuse directed at people on social media and elsewhere is what happened to Shane McEntee.

We've been so busy thinking abortion is the most divisive issue in Irish politics that we forgot it is the state of the economy that really makes people angry.

With the media looking out for examples of abuse directed at pro-choice public figures and commentators, we forgot all about the vitriol being directed at government politicians forced to defend another unavoidably tough budget.

Politicians have always been subjected to a certain amount of anger but in the past, once they closed their front door, they were able to get away from it. 

However, social media has changed that because the cyber-bullies can now reach you in your house via your smartphone or PC. It means your home is no longer your castle in the way it once was. There is no sanctuary.

What's the answer to this? 

The first is to try and develop a very thick skin. 

Another is to block anyone on Twitter who is abusive.

A third is that the people who run the politics websites have to do a much better job moderating the comments they allow to be posted.

Finally, can we all calm down a bit and try to be just a tad more civil towards one another in 2013? 

Would that be so very hard?

Christianity could be ‘wiped out’ in Middle East

Westminster think tank Civitas is warning that Christianity is in serious danger of being wiped out in its biblical heartlands.

Christians living in the region where the faith was born are coming under increasing threat from Islamic oppression, the think tank says in a new report.

Civitas says Western politicians and media are ignoring the widespread persecution of Christians in the Middle East and the wider world because they are afraid they will be accused of racism.

The report, Christianophobia, says that Christians are more likely to be the target of discrimination or persecution that any other religious group and warns that they are particularly at risk in Muslim-dominated societies.

The difficulties have been made worse by anti-Americanism and the false belief that Christianity is a “Western” creed, despite having its origins in the Middle East.

The report’s author, journalist Rupert Shortt, estimates that in the last century, between a half and two-thirds of Christians in the Middle East have left the region or been killed.

Christians are particularly at risk from militant Islam in Egypt, Iraq and Syria. Muslim-majority countries are generally most hostile to Christians, the report finds, and account for 12 of the 20 countries described as “unfree”.

In Iraq, the Christian population has fallen from between 1.2 and 1.4 million in 1990 to around 200,000 today as a result of bombings, killings and kidnappings, especially since the 2003 invasion.

Worldwide, an estimated 200 million Christians are facing social discrimination, harassment or overt oppression for their faith.

Mr Shortt notes that more Christians are imprisoned in China than any other country in the world.

“Exposing and combating the problem ought in my view to be political priorities across large areas of the world. That this is not the case tells us much about a questionable hierarchy of victimhood,” he says. “The blind spot displayed by governments and other influential players is causing them to squander a broader opportunity. Religious freedom is the canary in the mine for human rights generally.”

Thanksgiving service hails new beginning for Zimbabwe's Anglicans

Anglicans in Harare are looking forward to a new year in their own church buildings after they were returned to them following a protracted legal battle.

St Mary and All Saints Cathedral and other properties had been occupied by Dr Nolbert Kunonga, a former bishop who was excommunicated from the Anglican Communion in 2007 over his support for Robert Mugabe.

The properties were finally returned to the Church of the Province of Central Africa after the Zimbabwean Supreme Court found in its favour.
 
The court victory was celebrated by a historic thanksgiving service in Harare attended by a thousand worshippers.

The Bishop of Harare, the Right Reverend Chad Gandiya said: “All those five years we were driven from our churches and went into exile, life was not easy but God was with us. We survived and found grace in exile.”

He called upon Anglicans to work together in rebuilding the diocese, saying that many of the churches and schools were in need of renovation after years of neglect.

“As we journey from the past, pressing on towards the goal together, there is a lot of work to be done in the area of rebuilding our diocese,” he said.

The Primate of the Province, Archbishop Albert Chama, said, “You are going back to your churches to worship God in dignity as it was intended to be. Be strong as you are a testimony to the rest of the church. Continue and never relent because wherever we are we say we are learning from the church in Zimbabwe.”
 
A message of congratulations was sent to the Diocese of Harare from the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams.

In it, the Archbishop praised the way in which they had persevered through the many difficulties of the last five years.

“You have faced threats of violence and arrest and yet your faith has not weakened, rather it has grown stronger,” he said. “I want to commend particularly the leadership of Bishop Chad Gandiya and Bishop Sebastian Bakare before him, as they have embodied authentic Christian servant-hearted leadership. Through all this, your faith has been a beacon of light to the rest of the Anglican Communion.”

New Chechen Bible completed

A new Bible in the Chechen language has been completed.

The entire Chechen language Bible was released by the Institute of Bible Translation.

It was worked on by an international team of translators for over 15 years.

There are around 1.5 million native Chechen speakers.

The initial print-run of the Chechen Bible is 2,000 copies.

The Institute of Bible Translation said: “This is not a large number, but we hope that it will be enough to satisfy the needs of libraries, churches and interested readers."

Obama petitioned to label Roman Catholic Church as a ‘hate group’

Already petitioned to label the Westboro Baptist Church, home of the God Hates Fags campaign as a ‘hate group’, Barack Obama is now being petitioned to give the same label to the Roman Catholic Church.

The petition cites comments made by the Pope at Christmas where he said that gay people are manipulating their sexual orientation to alter god-given nature, and that they ”deny their nature”, which is “given to them by their bodily identity.”

The petition says:- “In his annual Christmas address to the College of Cardinals, Pope Benedict XVI, the global leader of the Roman Catholic Church, demeaned and belittled homosexual people around the world. Using hateful language and discriminatory remarks, the Pope painted a portrait in which gay people are second-class global citizens. 

“Pope Benedict said that gay people starting families are threatening to society, and that gay parents objectify and take away the dignity of children. The Pope also implied that gay families are sub-human, as they are not dignified in the eyes of God.

“Upon these remarks, the Roman Catholic Church fits the definition of a hate group as defined by both the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League.”

With more than 77 million registered members, the Catholic Church is the largest single denomination in the United States of America and it is highly unlikely that the president would wish to alienate such a large number of people. 

Released less than 24 hours ago, it has failed to gain any signatures and is currently not visible on the main White House petitions website.

In is ‘World Day of Peace’ remarks last week, the Pope said: “There is also a need to acknowledge and promote the natural structure of marriage as the union of a man and a woman in the face of attempts to make it juridically equivalent to radically different types of union.

“Such attempts actually harm and help to destabilise marriage, obscuring its specific nature and its indispensable role in society”, the Pope told worshipers.

Pope Benedict XVI was also pictured giving a blessing to Rebecca Kadaga, the Speaker of the Ugandan Parliament, who has promised to pass the country’s notorious Anti-Homosexuality Bill as a “Christmas gift”.

The petition can be found here.

Narcolimosnas – alms from drug cartels infect the Mexican Catholic church

The Mexican Navy killed Heriberto Lazcano, “El Lazca,” leader of Los Zetas, one of Mexico’s most feared and violent drug cartels on October 7. 

He had been connected to some 30,000 murders.

According to the Mexican authorities, he owned a ranch where he used to get rid of his victims by feeding them to several lions and tigers.

A plaque on a wall of the chapel in the village of Tezontle, Hidalgo, proclaims the building was donated by Heriberto Lazcano. 

“Lord, hear my prayer; listen to my cry for mercy; in your faithfulness and righteousness come to my relief,” reads the plaque referring to Psalm 143 in the bible. The bronze-colored marker also states the chapel was built in honor of Pope John Paul II.

According to a CBS news report, Rev. Juan Aguilar, spokesman for the Roman Catholic Archdioceses of Tulancingo, where the chapel is located, said the church was built in 2009 as a community project but the money did not go through the church, which was unaware of who funded it. 

After the revelation the Archdioceses of Tulancingo, to whom the church belongs, distanced itself from the property while admitting it knows of other donations from drug traffickers. 

The Mexican Attorney General is currently investigating the funding of the Tezontle chapel for possible criminal charges, including money laundering or “use of illicit funds,” according to The Seattle Times.

This incident and others reported recently by news media highlight a growing concern about the possible flow of illicit drug profits in Mexico to religious institutions to pay for construction, new buildings and even charitable programs. It’s a suspected practice few government or church officials are willing to admit or discuss publicly.

“The penal code does not list church donations as money laundering,” said Kathya Martinez, a lawyer in a prestigious Ciudad Juarez law firms. “Money laundering is doing legal business with illegal money, so unless the authorities can prove that a priest conducted any type of business and lied to ‘Hacienda’ (Mexican Treasury) about the origin of the money you have no case.”

As the number of casualties in Mexico’s drug war continues to climb, the New York Times states that so far a total number of 47,515 deaths have been recorded, and the Mexican Catholic church faces some serious allegations. 

Some parishes across the country are being accused of relying on generous donations from dubious sources, or “narcolimosnas” from drug lords, according to a report by Angela Kocherga on KVUE TV in Austin. 

Bishop Ramon Godinez of Aguascalientes, in a recent interview with Televisa said priests have no control over who gives money and don’t investigate the origin of donations.

“Of course the cartels donate money,” said Godinez, in the Televisa interview. “If they have money they have to spend it. We don’t investigate where the money comes from; we live from donations. If it is ill-gotten money the church can clean it. I don’t know why they’ve made such a scandal out of this.”
 
Dr. Howard Campbell, an anthropology professor at the University of Texas at El Paso and author of the book Narco-Propaganda in the Mexican Drug War: An Anthropological Perspective, believes that “narcos” want to create a positive public image. “They want to play into the whole Pablo Escobar image of the benevolent social bandit.”

The Mexican Episcopate Conference (CEM), the official leadership body of the Catholic Church in Mexico, reiterated its complete and absolute rejection of these donations from organized crime.

Campbell said he visited a church built with “narcolimosnas.”

“I was in Culiacan, Sinaloa with a group of journalists and visited a church that was built by “El JT,” Campbell said. The initials stand for Mexican drug lord Javier Torres. “It was an official Catholic Church. We talked to the priest and he was a little bit evasive but in the end the story holds up – the ‘narco’ built the church.”

Another example of illegal drug profits being used to fund religion is the church of San Ignacio of Loyola in Tamazula, Durango, a small town in the marijuana growing region known as  the “Golden Triangle.” 

According to authorities, this region is controlled by drug kingpin Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman.

“The pews were donated by local drug lords according to the inscriptions in them,” said Rodrigo Vera, a journalist for the Mexican newspaper Proceso.

One of the pews says donated by “Ines Calderon Q,” refering to Ines Calderon Quintero, wife of Rafael Caro-Quintero, a member of the Sinaloa Cartel. According to a report from the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), Caro-Quintero was one of the first persons to introduce cocaine and heroin to the United States. 

He is also accused of collaborating in the assassination of DEA Agent Enrique Camarena in 1984. Caro-Quintero is in a Mexican maximum security prison sentenced to 40 years for the assassination of Camarena.

Another pew says that it was donated by the family of Sandra Avila Beltran, a former beauty queen known as  “La Reina del Pacífico,” who was charged and convicted of laundering billions of dollars worth of drugs smuggled from Colombia to Mexico. 

In June, she was extradited to Florida and is facing charges for trafficking cocaine into the country, according to BBC News.

In 2010, Bishop Raul Vera of Saltillo told the Los Angeles Times: “They make us accomplices after the fact. A steeple built with drug money has blood gushing from its rafters.”

According to Vera, the states of Michoacán, Durango, Sinaloa, and Guerrero are the most dangerous places in Mexico for priests. 

Several priests have already been killed, with seven murders in the Archdioceses of Mexico alone. 

With this in mind, some bishops argue that before people go on to judge a priest for taking cartel money they should take into consideration the circumstances that surround the situation because many fear for their lives.

Cartel donations to the church are not a new topic in Mexico. 

In the 1990’s, the crime cartel of the Arellano Felix brothers (also known as the Tijuana Cartel) were accused of donating huge amounts of money to the then bishop of Tijuana, Emilio Berlie, who was able to schedule a private meeting with the Mexican Apostolic Nuncio Jerónimo Prigione.

Prigione  “thanked them for their generosity,” laughed Campbell. The cartel of the Arellano Felix may be connected to one of the most famous cold cases in recent history in Mexico.

On May 24, 1993, Juan Jesus Posadas Ocampo, Cardinal of Guadalajara, along with six others, was assassinated outside the Guadalajara International Airport. He was inside his car when he received 14 gunshots. 

According to CNN, government investigations concluded that he was caught in a shootout between rival cartels and was mistaken for a drug lord but no one was ever jailed for the murder.

Although the assassination of the Cardinal was allegedly ordered by the Arellano Felix cartel, some members of the hit squad were members of the Logan Heights gang of San Diego. 

The United States charged nine members of the Logan Heights gang in connection with Posada Ocampo’s murder and eventually three pleaded guilty.

Soon after Vicente Fox won the presidency of Mexico in 2000 the case was reopened when he promised to solve several high-profile murders. 

With the reopened investigation new information surfaced. Testimony from a childhood friend of Posadas Ocampo said that the Cardinal had told him he was called to the house of then President Salinas de Gortari and received death threats weeks before his murder. 

According to one theory, the assassination may have been planned by the Salinas de Gortari government based on allegations that a senior aide to the Mexican President warned the Cardinal to keep quiet about information that linked senior politicians with the drug trade.

“They created this evil monster out of Salinas de Gortari,” Campbell said. “After his ‘sexenio‘ there was an attempt to blame every single problem in Mexico on him. It seems more likely that the Arellano Felix ordered his assassination.”

Some wonder why neither the government nor the press have been more proactive in investigating the practice of “narcolimosnas.”

Lawyer Martinez believes the lack of investigation is politically motivated.

“Federal laws protect the church, whereas any individual might be imprisoned for a felony, a member of the clergy will only be fined. The Mexican Government does not want to have problems with the church,” said Kathya Martinez.

Alfredo Corchado, an award-winning journalist from the Dallas Morning News who is writing a book about the Mexican drug wars, said through an e-mail that narcolimosnas are “quite common” in Mexico.

“And it’s a message to the community via the church on who has the economic power there. What better way to win over a community, their loyalty and their silence through limosnas,” he added.

“Mexican mainstream media don’t cover these stories because they are part of the system; they receive other kinds of “limosnas.” Journalists who do investigate the issue are killed, so that’s another reason. And the Government doesn’t investigate because this is the least of their problems” concluded Dr. Howard Campbell.

The small luxurious church in Tezontle, Hidalgo was built next to the San Francisco cemetery, with a capacity of about 200. The church was built next to the cemetery with only one thing in Heriberto Lazcano’s mind, to be his last resting place. 

After his death, the body was stolen by a group of armed men who entered and threatened the personnel of the morgue in Coahuila; the body was put in a funeral car and rode off, according to Noticieros Televisa. 

The location of the body of Heriberto Lazcano is still unknown. 

“El Lazca” was aware of the fate that awaited him, but his last wish of being put to rest in the church that was built with his money is yet to come true.

Duke of Norfolk's visit to Maze Prison prompted rebuke by chaplains

A visit by Britain's leading English Catholic nobleman, the Duke of Norfolk, to the Maze Prison in July 1981, during the republican hunger strike, provoked a strong rebuke from its two Catholic chaplains.

The rebuke is revealed in files from the Public Record Office NI that have been released under the 30-year rule.

The duke's visit took place on 22 July, 1981.

He was accompanied by Northern Ireland Office minister Lord Elton.

In a subsequent report to the NI Secretary of State, Humphrey Atkins, Lord Elton reported that they had visited the prison hospital where a number of hunger strikers were approaching death.

The duke had talked to IRA hunger striker Paddy Quinn, then on the 38th day of his fast, and to the relatives of another hunger striker Kieran Doherty.

Lord Elton wrote that the duke had told him afterwards "that he had identified himself as unimpeachably Roman Catholic and that this had been accepted in each case".

"It also seemed to be accepted by all concerned that the hunger strike had been condemned as sinful and he (the duke) pointed out that it could achieve nothing," he said. "It became clear, however, that there was a fixed dedication to achieving the death of the hunger strikers in question.

"Doherty's mother, in particular, made it clear that if her son came off the strike it would be a personal defeat for him. In spite of obvious emotional distress, she was committed to supporting him to the end. His girlfriend, however, seemed much less enthusiastic."

 

In their journey back from the Maze Prison, Lord Elton was at pains to dissuade the duke, a member of the House of Lords, from pursuing his idea of an Anglo-Irish 'condominium' over Northern Ireland.

No sooner had the duke left the prison than he received a sharp rebuke from the two Catholic prison chaplains, the Rev John J Murphy and the Rev (later Monsignor) Tom Toner.

They said that as chaplains responsible for the pastoral care of the prisoners they resented "the implications for us of a moral judgment which you passed and which you described as the teaching of the Church".
 
'Moral guidance'

"Your attitude and views caused unnecessary hardship for a family already bewildered and distressed by the imminent death of their son," they said.

The priests acknowledged that the duke's concern for the prisoners was "praiseworthy".

However, they added that in "the extremely delicate situation of the Maze whose inmates have attracted pastoral attention from the Pope … we should be obliged if you would leave the moral guidance of prisoners and their families to those whose responsibility they are".

They also accused the duke of discourtesy in failing to consult them as the official Catholic chaplains at the prison.

On receipt of the priests' protest, the duke informed Lord Elton from his seat at Arundel Castle that the letter had "caused my hackles to rise".

In his letter to the two priests, dated 28 July, 1981, the duke told them he had spent a "most harrowing day's visit" to the prison where he had spoken to some of those "on the blanket" as well as Kieran Doherty's mother and girlfriend.

"I mentioned to both that I was very sad they were on hunger strike for 'special status' because I knew, from being a backbench peer, that the government were determined not to grant this," he said. "I added that, although the Irish hierarchy has spoken against suicide as morally wrong, I was pleased to hear they were getting Holy Communion daily."
 
The duke told Fathers Murphy and Toner that he was "distressed" that they felt he had "caused unnecessary hardship for the Doherty family".

Finally, he revealed that he had just attended Mass in honour of his ancestor, Saint Philip Howard and had asked the priest to pray for the hunger strikers.

'In short, my sincerity to try and help you is total," he added.

Constitutional amendment that led to 30 winters of discontent

ANALYSIS: Successive governments led by Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil received legal advice in the early 1980s pointing to serious flaws in a ‘pro-life’ amendment to the Constitution. 

Nonetheless it went to a referendum and was carried in 1983.

Just who was responsible for the wording of the 1983 “pro-life” constitutional amendment has been a matter of some controversy down the years.

A referendum sought by the anti-abortion lobby to bring legal certainty to the issue has led to 30 years of court cases, further referendums and continuing debate.

State papers for 1982 show that successive governments led by Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil received legal advice pointing to serious flaws in the proposal. 

But neither was willing to pay the political cost of facing down the influential Pro Life Amendment Campaign (Plac) in a year that featured two general elections.

Plac had raised fears that the existing law could be challenged in the Supreme Court after a number of cases in the UK and the US tested abortion laws there.

It became a major electoral issue, and the two main parties pledged to support Plac by introducing an amendment. But they hadn’t counted on the legal complexities involved, and no fewer than three attorneys general offered advice on the proposed amendment in a 12-month period.

Peter Sutherland, who counselled Garret FitzGerald against the measure, took the unprecedented step of publishing his legal opinion in advance of the referendum in 1983.

It can be compared to advice proffered by Patrick Connolly and John L Murray, who both served in Charles Haughey’s government between February and December 1982.

The documents show the final wording resembles an initial proposal by Connolly aimed at satisfying Plac but that this was revised considerably by Murray, with Haughey’s input.

The files also show that officials in the departments of the Taoiseach and Foreign Affairs expressed concern about the proposal, including its implication for Anglo-Irish affairs, but these concerns were shot down for “political” reasons.

Fresh advice 

One of Haughey’s first decisions on taking up office in February 1982 was to get fresh legal advice on the proposed amendment. 

Sutherland’s damning critique, drawn up for Garret FitzGerald’s first government in 1981, was withheld from his successor Connolly but if this was aimed at securing an enthusiastic response it was only partially successful.

Connolly questioned Plac’s core contention that section 58 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861, could be challenged in the Supreme Court to allow for abortion.

“The degree of certainty expressed by the pro-life amendment campaign concerning the state of the existing law seems strange when one considers that in the 121 years that have elapsed since the enactment of that section not one sentence occurs in any Irish reported case concerning its meaning.”

Foreseeing some of the problems thrown up by the 1992 X case, he noted that, “whatever my personal views be”, a rape victim could not be exempted from any constitutional prohibition.

Nor, “in the current climate of what it is sought to achieve”, could the amendment exempt abortion where the mental health of a woman was at serious risk.

While offering a proposed wording, Connolly said any declared right to life of the unborn in the amendment should be “subject to the right to life of other persons”.

This advice was commended in a confidential memo by Martin Mansergh, then an adviser to Haughey. It noted a reported perception in Irish Protestantism that “a Roman Catholic doctor will always let the mother die in order to save the child, even when the foetus was by no means viable”.

Mansergh continued: “The Attorney General’s qualification ‘subject to the right to life of other persons’ is very important in dealing with this critical objection, even if one admits that it may be largely mythology.”

Connolly was forced to resign on August 16th after the arrest of Malcolm Macarthur in his home, an episode which helped to bring “Gubu” (grotesque, unbelievable, bizarre and unprecedented) to the Irish political lexicon.

His successor, Murray, made revisions to the wording, presenting Haughey with four options. Also, there were three other wordings which “the Taoiseach also asks the Government to consider”, a September memo noted.

Murray, who went on to become chief justice, was highly critical of the Labour Party’s opposition to the amendment. He proposed contributing to “a political brief” for Haughey refuting Labour’s “grossly misleading and inaccurate” stance, unaware perhaps that some of its claims were taken straight from Sutherland’s legal briefing.

International implications 

There was opposition to the amendment in the Department of Foreign Affairs, which noted that the then minister Gerry Collins shared “the concern . . . that the intended measure will have damaging effects on the image of the State in Northern Ireland and in Britain”.

The Department of Justice noted that the amendment would “be likely sooner or later to come into conflict” with the European Convention on Human Rights.

Seán O’Riordan, a principal officer in the Department of the Taoiseach, warned – somewhat prophetically – that the amendment could backfire on the “pro-life” campaign by challenging existing medical practice. 

Briefing the new Fianna Fáil taoiseach in March 1982, he also drew attention to Sutherland’s advice and noted: “I believe that this view may well be shared by many legal experts, but the weight which one attaches to it is of course ultimately a matter for political judgment”.

“It certainly is!” Haughey replied in a handwritten note in the margins.

Haughey hastily published the wording before the November 1982 general election, but was caught by surprise when FitzGerald gave it his blessing. 

On becoming taoiseach again, the Fine Gael leader changed his mind, proposing an alternative wording, on Sutherland’s advice, in February 1983 .

However, a group of Fine Gael and Labour TDs helped to vote it down, and the Fianna Fáil wording was put to the people.

It was approved in September 1983 by two-thirds of the 55 per cent of the electorate who voted.

It was, however, far from the last word on the issue.

Church refused to surrender Papal Cross

The Catholic Church sought £100,000 from the State before it would surrender ownership of the Papal Cross in the Phoenix Park, claiming it was owed this money from the visit of John Paul II to Ireland.

The State papers released under the 30-year rule show that former taoiseach Charles Haughey took a close personal interest in developing the site, and was anxious to create a “pleasant sylvan setting” around the cross.

However, the plan hit a roadblock in April 1981 when the Office of Public Works reported it was “unable to progress further . . . as ownership of the cross is still retained by the hierarchy."

“The hierarchy are refusing to transfer ownership, as costs approx £100,000 arising out of the papal visit which the taoiseach promised that the State would bear, have not been paid. When OPW requested sanction to meet these costs, the Department of Finance raised with the Attorney General’s Office the constitutionality of paying the bills of the hierarchy of a particular religion out of public funds.”

A note in the margins referred to the prospect of resolving the matter without seeking the AG’s advice which could be “counterproductive at times”.

Security bill 

Asked about the matter in recent days, the OPW was unable to establish whether money changed hands.

Previously released papers show the State had anticipated a security bill of up to £2 million arising from the papal visit but decided against seeking reimbursement from the church.

Haughey was instrumental in the plan for developing the site around the cross, rejecting the OPW’s contention – recorded in an April 1980 memo – that the cross would be “a most intrusive feature” and “out of harmony with the general character of the park landscape”.

A memo from the same month noted the taoiseach had initially been “not too happy with the proposal to retain the cross” but changed his mind following a meeting with Archbishop of Dublin Dermot Ryan.

Ironically, given the church’s later plea for money, it is recorded that at the same meeting the archbishop asked the government to waive unspecified bills owed to three departments.

A memo dated April 9th, 1980, said Haughey agreed to the request. 

“He undertook also to have enquiries made with a view to seeing whether the ESB and Aer Rianta would be prepared to remit (or reduce) their accounts.”

Slow progress 

Of the cross, Haughey wrote 10 months later saying he was “very disappointed at the slow progress” on developing the site. 

Tenders were then sought but the project stalled over the church’s financial demands and changes of government.

Back in power in November 1982, Haughey wrote to minister of state Sylvie Barrett that “effort should be made to make it [the site] attractive, even inspirational. I think we should go for an abundance of trees of all kinds and create a pleasant sylvan setting in which visitors coming to see the cross can relax.”

He also asked for a sketch of the proposed layout of trees, including white birch chosen because its white trunk and yellowish foliage reflected the papal colours.

In the event, no birch trees were planted, the OPW said this week. 

“However a line of oaks were planted either side of the path in the area and these were interspersed with Acers,” more commonly known as maples.

Abortion referendum wording seen as 'time bomb'

The wording of the 1983 “pro-life” amendment to the Constitution was hastily approved despite one attorney general labelling it a legal “time bomb” and another expressing doubts about its merits, newly released State papers show.

On November 2nd, 1982, two days before a vote of no confidence in the Dáil, which led to a general election the following month, the then Fianna Fáil government announced the wording of the anti-abortion amendment, which went on to be approved by the electorate.

This was despite the government being warned by attorney general Patrick Connolly SC that a “pro-life” amendment “might well have the effect of threatening the right of the mother” to have a life-saving operation.

Foreseeing some of the problems thrown up by the 1992 X case, Mr Connolly noted that, “whatever my personal views be”, a rape victim could not be exempted from any constitutional prohibition.

Nor, “in the current climate of what it is sought to achieve”, could the amendment exempt abortion where the mental health of a woman was at serious risk.

The Fianna Fáil government also had advice from the previous attorney general, Peter Sutherland, who argued that the amendment would create serious legal ambiguities.

A senior official in the Department of the Taoiseach told Mr Haughey, “I believe that this view may well be shared by many legal experts”, but this advice, along with concerns expressed by other officials, was dismissed as political pressure from anti-abortion campaigners.

The records also show Mr Sutherland’s advice was withheld from Mr Connolly in an apparent bid to speed up the process.

Mr Connolly was forced to resign on August 16th after the arrest of double murderer Malcolm Macarthur in his home.

His successor, John L Murray, a future chief justice, produced a list of possible amendment wordings a month later – and just six weeks before the final decision was made.

Mr Murray dismissed the Labour Party’s objections to the amendment as “grossly misleading and inaccurate”. However, he acknowledged a potential conflict of rights over the issue, and noted legislation by the Oireachtas “would be a reconciliation” of this, while making no specific recommendation on the matter.

In subsequent years, Garret FitzGerald expressed regret for initially supporting the referendum wording, writing in this newspaper in 1997: “I bear a share of responsibility for the debacle of the 1983 referendum.”

The files also show that Enda Kenny made representations on behalf of constituents between August 1981 and June 1982, seeking to expedite the introduction of the amendment.

Within the large volume of correspondence released this year by the Department of the Taoiseach, no other TD made as many such representations.

Nine years after the amendment was introduced, it was invoked by the High Court to prevent a 14-year-old rape victim from travelling abroad for an abortion.

The Supreme Court overturned the ruling as the life of the girl, known as X, was deemed to be at risk through the threat of suicide.

Legislation to finally deal with the issue was promised earlier this month by the Government.

At least 143,000 women have travelled from Ireland to have abortions in the UK since the 1983 referendum, official British health figures indicate.

UK envoy surprised cardinal was so religious

The British ambassador was surprised to discover that the head of the Catholic Church in Ireland was a deeply religious man.

Leonard Figg made the remarks in a letter reporting on his visit to Armagh to meet Cardinal Tomas O Fiaich in February 1982.

"The cardinal was genial and welcoming," he said. "Contrary to expectations, I found him a sincerely religious character who genuinely appeared to treasure the close relationship he has formed with his Church of Ireland and Methodist opposite numbers."

The meeting came four months after the hunger strike had ended.

According to the letter, Cardinal O Fiaich suggested the strike may have been avoided had prisoners been allowed to wear their own clothes earlier in 1981.

Mr Figg wrote: "I suggested that this might well be so but that we would have had to face a hunger strike later on, since I did not believe the deadly onslaught on the prison system represented by 10 deaths could have been warded off by fiddling with the details of prison administration."

European austerity measures reach the Vatican budget

The Vatican must adopt “effective” cost reduction measures in the wake of the global economic crisis, Pope Benedict XVI’s No. 2 official warned on Dec. 18.

Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, the Vatican’s Secretary of State, told employees of the Holy See’s budget department that, in the face of “continuing inability to increase revenues,” a “gradual, but effective, reduction of costs” was needed to reduce recent budget deficits.

In 2011, the Holy See posted its highest loss in more than a decade, with a negative balance of $19 million (15 million euros), blaming it on the “negative trend of global financial markets.”

The loss was compounded by a marked increase in expenses, which jumped by $37 million (28 million euros), while revenues registered only a slight increase.

In recent years, European countries have been forced to adopt drastic austerity measures in the face of a sluggish economic growth and rising debt. The Vatican, too, has been forced to walk down the same path.

This year’s nativity scene in St. Peter’s Square, which was unveiled on Christmas Eve, cost around $ 160,000 in total, with only $29,000 paid by the Vatican itself and the rest covered by the Italian region of Basilicata.

This is a drastic savings compared to past years. 

Documents that came to light during the Vatileaks affair showed that, in 2009, the Vatican spent $730,000 for the St. Peter’s creche.

The Vatican budget office, known as the Prefecture for the Economic Affairs, has been given vast new powers to oversee and control expenses in all Vatican departments and institutions. 

The new rules came into force last February and the Prefecture’s head, Italian Cardinal Giuseppe Versaldi, said that “substantial improvements” in the Vatican’s ability to raise money are not foreseeable in the near future. 

“The only solution is to reduce costs by planning a rationalization and optimization of current resources,” he said.

Jesus was born years earlier than thought, claims Pope

The entire Christian calendar is based on a miscalculation, the Pope has declared, as he claims in a new book that Jesus was born several years earlier than commonly believed.

The 'mistake' was made by a sixth century monk known as Dionysius Exiguus or in English Dennis the Small, the 85-year-old pontiff claims in the book 'Jesus of Nazareth: The Infancy Narratives.'

"The calculation of the beginning of our calendar – based on the birth of Jesus – was made by Dionysius Exiguus, who made a mistake in his calculations by several years," the Pope writes in the book, which went on sale around the world with an initial print run of a million copies. 

"The actual date of Jesus's birth was several years before."

The assertion that the Christian calendar is based on a false premise is not new – many historians believe that Christ was born sometime between 7BC and 2BC.

But the fact that doubts over one of the keystones of Christian tradition have been raised by the leader of the world's one billion Catholics is striking.

Dennis the Small, who was born in Eastern Europe, is credited with being the "inventor" of the modern calendar and the concept of the Anno Domini era. 

He drew up the new system in part to distance it from the calendar in use at the time, which was based on the years since the reign of the Roman emperor Diocletian.

The emperor had persecuted Christians, so there was good reason to expunge him from the new dating system in favour of one inspired by the birth of Christ.

The monk's calendar became widely accepted in Europe after it was adopted by the Venerable Bede, the historian-monk, to date the events that he recounted in his Ecclesiastical History of the English People, which he completed in AD 731.

But exactly how Dennis calculated the year of Christ's birth is not clear and the Pope's claim that he made a mistake is a view shared by many scholars.

The Bible does not specify a date for the birth of Christ. The monk instead appears to have based his calculations on vague references to Jesus's age at the start of his ministry and the fact that he was baptised in the reign of the emperor Tiberius.

Christ's birth date is not the only controversy raised by the Pope in his new book – he also said that contrary to the traditional Nativity scene, there were no oxen, donkeys or other animals at Jesus's birth.

He also weighs in on the debate over Christ's birthplace, rejecting arguments by some scholars that he was born in Nazareth rather than Bethlehem.

John Barton, Professor of the Interpretation of the Holy Scripture at Oriel College, Oxford University, said most academics agreed with the Pope that the Christian calendar was wrong and that Jesus was born several years earlier than commonly thought, probably between 6BC and 4BC.

"There is no reference to when he was born in the Bible - all we know is that he was born in the reign of Herod the Great, who died before 1AD," he told The Daily Telegraph. "It's been surmised for a very long time that Jesus was born before 1AD - no one knows for sure."

The idea that Christ was born on Dec 25 also has no basis in historical fact. 

"We don't even know which season he was born in. The whole idea of celebrating his birth during the darkest part of the year is probably linked to pagan traditions and the winter solstice."