In her column in this newspaper last Saturday Mary Kenny chose to make reference to my spiritual life. She pitied me for having no spiritual element in my life, assuming it consisted only of the material and was therefore bland and unimaginative.
Mary Kenny has of course never met me, never phoned me, never asked for a meeting or an interview over coffee, never tried to contact me in any way to ask me about anything. Until now I have made little or no reference in public to what spiritual life I do have, so she had absolutely no information on which to base her opinion. What she did have was the most contemptible arrogance to assume to know enough to write about it anyway. A more ignorant, condescending pouring out of sanctimonious drivel I have not read in a long time.
All Kenny knew was that I had completed the formal process of defecting from the Catholic Church and from that one single fact she assumed to know everything else, next week she’ll probably preach to us all she knows about humility. Thousands of others have chosen to leave the Catholic Church too but, unlike Kenny, I don’t assume to know all of their reasons.
I have been a Catholic in name only for many years but after all I have seen of the Church in recent times I decided I did not want that organisation in my life anymore, not even in name only. To assume, as Kenny does, that I therefore have no spirituality in my life is truly reprehensible.
I am crossing a line here I haven’t crossed before but Kenny’s vitriolic nonsense last Saturday cannot go unchecked. Almost 13 years ago I tried to stop drinking, having tried twice before and failed. I had been an active alcoholic for 14 years by then and was quite a mess at the end of it all. Anything I did, in all those years I was drinking, was done with a drink in my hand. I lived at about 10% of what I was capable of and I struggled to do even that. When I stopped drinking I had to learn how to live without it. I had to learn how to be. How to get through a whole day without getting drunk. How to pass an evening. How to enjoy music. How to conduct friendships properly. How to relax at the end of a day’s work. How to socialise and meet people sober. How to watch tv or read a book.
I also learned that I could not do all of this by myself. I had friends who themselves had crossed the bridge from addiction to normal living, but more was needed. Over time as I slowly became a happy confident able man I accepted that I was receiving more help than that of friends. I came to believe in a power greater than myself and came to believe that that power was helping me to stay sober and helping me learn to live happily, because I had never been able to do that on my own unaided will. I chose to call that power the Spirit of Recovery, that which keeps me sober.
It didn’t come easy or natural for me to start believing in any such power but as time in recovery passed my belief in a power greater than myself grew and deepened. Instead of believing that a higher power was just helping me stay sober I believed that it was helping me in all areas of my life. As a friend of mine says ‘he’s looking after all of it, or none of it.’ I see my higher power as a loving caring essence in my life that wants me to be well, happy and living a good life.
Today I try to hand my will and my life over to the care of that higher power every morning before I leave the house in order that my actions and thoughts might be guided by my higher power’s will for me. At night I review my day and thank my higher power for everything including the fact that I didn’t drink. I ask my higher power to look after other people too, just like I used to ask God to do when I was a little boy lying in bed thinking I would one day be a priest.
But of course I don’t need to be a priest to believe in a power greater than myself, spirituality is not the preserve of practising Catholics and having a sense of oneself that extends beyond the physical and the material is not an understanding exclusive to the obnoxious Mary Kenny. And the next time she chooses to write about other people she should afford them the courtesy of getting her facts right first, and keep her patronising pity to herself.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
OPEN LTR TO POPE BENEDICT
OPEN LETTER TO POPE BENEDICT XVI
ON BEHALF OF
MARIE COLLINS, ONE IN FOUR, ANDREW MADDEN
Pope Benedict XVI
February 2010
Dear Pope Benedict,
As the Irish bishops gather in Rome for their meeting with you, we are writing to ensure that the voices of the survivors of abuse by Catholic priests have a place in your deliberations.
The distress, anger and frustration experienced by survivors since the publication of the Report of the Commission of Investigation into Sexual Abuse in the Archdiocese of Dublin (the Murphy Report) is enormous. Many who have suffered throughout their lives from the impact of sexual abuse by priests in childhood now realise, having read the Report, that their pain and suffering could have been avoided if senior churchmen and the civil authorities had acted properly in response to complaints received from earlier victims.
Survivors find in incomprehensible that the Vatican and your representative in Ireland, the Papal Nuncio, saw fit to hide behind diplomatic protocols to avoid co-operating with the Murphy Commission.
Bishops Donal Murray, James Moriarty, Eamon Walsh, Raymond Field and Martin Drennan were all bishops in the Archdiocese of Dublin during some of the period investigated by the Commission. When the Report was published each of these Bishops attempted to remain in office by insisting that the findings of the Report did not warrant their resignations. They initially took no responsibility for either their actions or their failure to challenge a culture of cover up which they instead became a part of. Since then Bishop Murray has resigned and his resignation has been accepted by you. We understand that Bishops James Moriarty, Eamon Walsh and Raymond Field have offered their resignations too, which we urge you to accept without any further delay. We would also urge you to remove Bishop Martin Drennan who still refuses to accept any responsibility for his part in supporting a culture of cover up during his time in Dublin.
The core finding of the Murphy Report was that the sexual abuse of children by priests was covered up by the Archdiocese of Dublin and other Church authorities over much of the period 1975 – 2004. Furthermore it found that the Dublin Archdiocese’s pre-occupations in dealing with cases of child sexual abuse, at least until the mid 1990s, were the maintenance of secrecy, the avoidance of scandal, the protection of the reputation of the Church, and the perseveration of its assets. All other considerations, including the welfare of children and justice for victims, were subordinated to these priorities.
This finding was rightly accepted by the Irish Catholic Bishops in their December 2009 statement where they said that they were shamed by the extent to which child sexual abuse was covered up in the Archdiocese of Dublin. They also said that they recognised that this indicated a culture that was widespread in the Church. We also now request that other bishops throughout Ireland who engaged in this culture of cover up in their own dioceses should resign from their positions instead of waiting to see the extent to which they are criticised in any future Reports should the Commission of investigation be expanded to include their dioceses.
The lives of thousands of Irish people have been devastated by sexual abuse by priests. We ask you to write, not only to Irish Catholics, but to all people of Ireland, accepting fully the harm that has been caused by the acts of omission and commission of the Catholic Church and its priests and bishops in Ireland.
Yours sincerely,
Marie Collins Maeve Lewis Andrew Madden
Survivor of Clerical Abuse One In Four Survivor of Clerical Abuse
ON BEHALF OF
MARIE COLLINS, ONE IN FOUR, ANDREW MADDEN
Pope Benedict XVI
February 2010
Dear Pope Benedict,
As the Irish bishops gather in Rome for their meeting with you, we are writing to ensure that the voices of the survivors of abuse by Catholic priests have a place in your deliberations.
The distress, anger and frustration experienced by survivors since the publication of the Report of the Commission of Investigation into Sexual Abuse in the Archdiocese of Dublin (the Murphy Report) is enormous. Many who have suffered throughout their lives from the impact of sexual abuse by priests in childhood now realise, having read the Report, that their pain and suffering could have been avoided if senior churchmen and the civil authorities had acted properly in response to complaints received from earlier victims.
Survivors find in incomprehensible that the Vatican and your representative in Ireland, the Papal Nuncio, saw fit to hide behind diplomatic protocols to avoid co-operating with the Murphy Commission.
Bishops Donal Murray, James Moriarty, Eamon Walsh, Raymond Field and Martin Drennan were all bishops in the Archdiocese of Dublin during some of the period investigated by the Commission. When the Report was published each of these Bishops attempted to remain in office by insisting that the findings of the Report did not warrant their resignations. They initially took no responsibility for either their actions or their failure to challenge a culture of cover up which they instead became a part of. Since then Bishop Murray has resigned and his resignation has been accepted by you. We understand that Bishops James Moriarty, Eamon Walsh and Raymond Field have offered their resignations too, which we urge you to accept without any further delay. We would also urge you to remove Bishop Martin Drennan who still refuses to accept any responsibility for his part in supporting a culture of cover up during his time in Dublin.
The core finding of the Murphy Report was that the sexual abuse of children by priests was covered up by the Archdiocese of Dublin and other Church authorities over much of the period 1975 – 2004. Furthermore it found that the Dublin Archdiocese’s pre-occupations in dealing with cases of child sexual abuse, at least until the mid 1990s, were the maintenance of secrecy, the avoidance of scandal, the protection of the reputation of the Church, and the perseveration of its assets. All other considerations, including the welfare of children and justice for victims, were subordinated to these priorities.
This finding was rightly accepted by the Irish Catholic Bishops in their December 2009 statement where they said that they were shamed by the extent to which child sexual abuse was covered up in the Archdiocese of Dublin. They also said that they recognised that this indicated a culture that was widespread in the Church. We also now request that other bishops throughout Ireland who engaged in this culture of cover up in their own dioceses should resign from their positions instead of waiting to see the extent to which they are criticised in any future Reports should the Commission of investigation be expanded to include their dioceses.
The lives of thousands of Irish people have been devastated by sexual abuse by priests. We ask you to write, not only to Irish Catholics, but to all people of Ireland, accepting fully the harm that has been caused by the acts of omission and commission of the Catholic Church and its priests and bishops in Ireland.
Yours sincerely,
Marie Collins Maeve Lewis Andrew Madden
Survivor of Clerical Abuse One In Four Survivor of Clerical Abuse
Thursday, January 28, 2010
BISHOP DERMOT O’MAHONY
I wish to express my great disappointment that former auxiliary Bishop Dermot O’Mahony has chosen to challenge the findings of the Murphy Report, specifically the emphatic finding that the sexual abuse of children by priests was covered up. This finding is backed up by a wealth of evidence throughout the Murphy Report and it was further accepted by the Irish Catholics Bishops at their Winter Conference in December 2009 when they admitted that they were shamed by the extent to which child sexual abuse was covered up in the Archdiocese of Dublin and recognised that this indicated a culture that was widespread in the Church.
The references to Bishop O’Mahony in the Murphy Report are quiet shocking as seen in examples below:
1.47 The auxiliary bishops who dealt particularly badly with complaints were Bishops O’Mahony and Kavanagh.
1.49 Bishop O’Mahony’s handling of complaints and suspicions of child sexual abuse was particularly bad..... When he ceased to be chancellor, he failed to tell Archbishop Ryan about a number of complaints, for example, the complaint relating to Fr Vidal on whose behalf he gave a reference to the diocese of Sacramento in California without giving details of his past history.
1.50 In the case of Fr Payne he allowed a psychiatric report which was clearly based on inaccurate information to be relied on by Archbishop Ryan and subsequently by Archbishop Connell
1.51 He failed to tell either the National Rehabilitation Hospital, Archdiocesan authorities or the Gardaí that Fr Reynolds, who was chaplain to the hospital at the time, might have a problem with child sexual abuse.
1.67 Bishop O’Mahony accepted that the policy of giving little or no information to the parish priest was probably there in order to protect the reputation of the priest and that it was a “wrong policy”.
15.21 The Commission is very concerned that Fr Vidal was allowed to return to ministry in spite of his admission of child sexual abuse. It is particularly concerned that Bishop O’Mahony did not provide the diocese of Sacramento with any information about Fr Vidal’s adverse history.
18.7 The Commission has grave concerns about the fact that Bishop O’Mahony gave a reference about Fr Tyrus when he sought a job working with young people at a time when Bishop O’Mahony was aware that Fr Tyrus had had a relationship with a 17-year-old girl when he was a teacher. Bishop O’Mahony told the Commission that there was nothing to indicate that the relationship with the 17 year old was a sexual one. The Commission considers that the description provided by the priest psychologist makes it abundantly clear that the relationship was sexual.
20.106 It appears that Bishop O’Mahony was still concerned that this matter might give rise to scandal ...Bishop O’Mahony disputes the characterisation of his motivation as being the avoidance of scandal. He told the Commission that his motivation was pastoral support for the family and the priest. However, the Commission considers that his notes and those of the local priest suggest that the avoidance of scandal was the primary consideration. Furthermore, there is no evidence of any ongoing Church support for the family once the immediate threat of scandal had passed.
24.79 The initial complaint against Fr Payne was handled very badly and, as a result of the failure to deal with it properly, many other children were abused or potentially exposed to abuse. Archbishop Ryan and Bishop O’Mahony were particularly culpable.
Bishop O’Mahony would do well to spend some time reflecting on the damage done so many children by what he did, and what he failed to do, instead of criticising Archbishop Diarmuid Martin for correctly accepting the findings of the Murphy Report in full.
END - 28/01/2010
The references to Bishop O’Mahony in the Murphy Report are quiet shocking as seen in examples below:
1.47 The auxiliary bishops who dealt particularly badly with complaints were Bishops O’Mahony and Kavanagh.
1.49 Bishop O’Mahony’s handling of complaints and suspicions of child sexual abuse was particularly bad..... When he ceased to be chancellor, he failed to tell Archbishop Ryan about a number of complaints, for example, the complaint relating to Fr Vidal on whose behalf he gave a reference to the diocese of Sacramento in California without giving details of his past history.
1.50 In the case of Fr Payne he allowed a psychiatric report which was clearly based on inaccurate information to be relied on by Archbishop Ryan and subsequently by Archbishop Connell
1.51 He failed to tell either the National Rehabilitation Hospital, Archdiocesan authorities or the Gardaí that Fr Reynolds, who was chaplain to the hospital at the time, might have a problem with child sexual abuse.
1.67 Bishop O’Mahony accepted that the policy of giving little or no information to the parish priest was probably there in order to protect the reputation of the priest and that it was a “wrong policy”.
15.21 The Commission is very concerned that Fr Vidal was allowed to return to ministry in spite of his admission of child sexual abuse. It is particularly concerned that Bishop O’Mahony did not provide the diocese of Sacramento with any information about Fr Vidal’s adverse history.
18.7 The Commission has grave concerns about the fact that Bishop O’Mahony gave a reference about Fr Tyrus when he sought a job working with young people at a time when Bishop O’Mahony was aware that Fr Tyrus had had a relationship with a 17-year-old girl when he was a teacher. Bishop O’Mahony told the Commission that there was nothing to indicate that the relationship with the 17 year old was a sexual one. The Commission considers that the description provided by the priest psychologist makes it abundantly clear that the relationship was sexual.
20.106 It appears that Bishop O’Mahony was still concerned that this matter might give rise to scandal ...Bishop O’Mahony disputes the characterisation of his motivation as being the avoidance of scandal. He told the Commission that his motivation was pastoral support for the family and the priest. However, the Commission considers that his notes and those of the local priest suggest that the avoidance of scandal was the primary consideration. Furthermore, there is no evidence of any ongoing Church support for the family once the immediate threat of scandal had passed.
24.79 The initial complaint against Fr Payne was handled very badly and, as a result of the failure to deal with it properly, many other children were abused or potentially exposed to abuse. Archbishop Ryan and Bishop O’Mahony were particularly culpable.
Bishop O’Mahony would do well to spend some time reflecting on the damage done so many children by what he did, and what he failed to do, instead of criticising Archbishop Diarmuid Martin for correctly accepting the findings of the Murphy Report in full.
END - 28/01/2010
Friday, January 15, 2010
LETTER TO ARCHBISHOP MARTIN
Dear Archbishop Martin,
Thank you for your letter of 11th January 2010.
In 1983 the Catholic Church in Dublin decided that I was not suitable for entry into the priesthood. Two years earlier the same Catholic Church had allowed Ivan Payne to continue as a priest despite knowing that he had sexually abused me for 21/2 years when I was aged 12-14 years. The idea that anyone sexually abusing children was more suitable for the priesthood than I was totally devastated me at that time and a belief in God and his Church, which had survived Ivan Payne’s actions, came to an abrupt and painful end.
In November 2009 the Murphy Report was published. I was deeply saddened at the sexual abuse of children and I was furiously angry at how the Catholic Church had caused the further sexual abuse of children by covering up abuse in different ways. My anger soon turned to rage when I saw Catholic bishops, including yourself, fail to articulately take responsibility for what your Church had done. You spoke so well about the awfulness of what some priests had done and the suffering of those abused; but there was no real mention of the sexual abuse caused by Bishops who had covered up for priests.
I was also appalled, as I believe you may have been, by the behaviour of your fellow bishops as they did everything to try and hold onto office, four of them failing, but not before they had added insult to injury by a collective failure to immediately offer their resignations in acknowledgment of what they had done, or failed to do, and out of respect for the experiences of children sexually abused by Catholic priests in Dublin.
A Church whose leading members behave in this way is not a Church I want in my life, not even in name only. A Church whose Bishops shielded paedophile priests is not a Church I want in my life. A Church whose priests congregate to express support for those Bishops continuing in office in direct opposition to what many victims asked for is not a Church I want in my life. A Church which finds Bishop Drennan acceptable in its Episcopal ranks, despite having been part of a Church in Dublin between 1997 and 2004 which covered up the sexual abuse of children is not a Church I want in my life. A Church which baptises babies but is arrogant enough to tell young people, or their parents, that defection is not possible until they are aged 18 is not a Church I want in my life. A Church which does not value gay and lesbian people as it does heterosexual people is not a Church I want in my life. A Church which parades itself as a State when it wants to avoid accounting to the citizens of a country whose children it has abused is not a Church I want in my life.
No priest will ever preach to me standards his own Church doesn’t even try to live up to. No priest will ever comfort me when I am sick. No priest will hear my ‘sins’. No priest will instruct me in penance. No priest will bless my relationship with my beautiful partner, Alan. No priest will pray over my coffin when I am dead. And no priest will bury me in ‘consecrated ground’.
Archbishop Martin, I believe you are a good man. I believe there are good priests, I know some of them. But that is not the same as saying I believe that the Catholic Church will ever change its ways or learn from what it has done.
Yours sincerely,
_______________
Andrew Madden
Thank you for your letter of 11th January 2010.
In 1983 the Catholic Church in Dublin decided that I was not suitable for entry into the priesthood. Two years earlier the same Catholic Church had allowed Ivan Payne to continue as a priest despite knowing that he had sexually abused me for 21/2 years when I was aged 12-14 years. The idea that anyone sexually abusing children was more suitable for the priesthood than I was totally devastated me at that time and a belief in God and his Church, which had survived Ivan Payne’s actions, came to an abrupt and painful end.
In November 2009 the Murphy Report was published. I was deeply saddened at the sexual abuse of children and I was furiously angry at how the Catholic Church had caused the further sexual abuse of children by covering up abuse in different ways. My anger soon turned to rage when I saw Catholic bishops, including yourself, fail to articulately take responsibility for what your Church had done. You spoke so well about the awfulness of what some priests had done and the suffering of those abused; but there was no real mention of the sexual abuse caused by Bishops who had covered up for priests.
I was also appalled, as I believe you may have been, by the behaviour of your fellow bishops as they did everything to try and hold onto office, four of them failing, but not before they had added insult to injury by a collective failure to immediately offer their resignations in acknowledgment of what they had done, or failed to do, and out of respect for the experiences of children sexually abused by Catholic priests in Dublin.
A Church whose leading members behave in this way is not a Church I want in my life, not even in name only. A Church whose Bishops shielded paedophile priests is not a Church I want in my life. A Church whose priests congregate to express support for those Bishops continuing in office in direct opposition to what many victims asked for is not a Church I want in my life. A Church which finds Bishop Drennan acceptable in its Episcopal ranks, despite having been part of a Church in Dublin between 1997 and 2004 which covered up the sexual abuse of children is not a Church I want in my life. A Church which baptises babies but is arrogant enough to tell young people, or their parents, that defection is not possible until they are aged 18 is not a Church I want in my life. A Church which does not value gay and lesbian people as it does heterosexual people is not a Church I want in my life. A Church which parades itself as a State when it wants to avoid accounting to the citizens of a country whose children it has abused is not a Church I want in my life.
No priest will ever preach to me standards his own Church doesn’t even try to live up to. No priest will ever comfort me when I am sick. No priest will hear my ‘sins’. No priest will instruct me in penance. No priest will bless my relationship with my beautiful partner, Alan. No priest will pray over my coffin when I am dead. And no priest will bury me in ‘consecrated ground’.
Archbishop Martin, I believe you are a good man. I believe there are good priests, I know some of them. But that is not the same as saying I believe that the Catholic Church will ever change its ways or learn from what it has done.
Yours sincerely,
_______________
Andrew Madden
Sunday, December 27, 2009
DUBLIN ABUSE REPORT
It is widely reported that the Bishop of Galway Bishop, Martin Drennan does not intend to resign. Bishop Drennan states that he wasn’t asked to appear before the Commission, but it should be remembered that the Commission only investigated a representative sample of allegations against 46 priests - it found allegations against 172 (102 of which were inside the terms of reference). We don’t know who was involved in the handling of those other allegations because the point of investigating a representative sample is to establish the culture, practices and system that existed between 1975 and 2004. That system, which Bishop Drennan was a part of for 7 years covered up the sexual abuse of children and caused the sexual abuse of more children.
Bishop Drennan states that by the time of his appointment in 1997 child protection structures were already in place. The Framework document of 1996 which he refers to was flawed and Cardinal Connell told the Commission that it was not binding in canon or civil law so he could follow only those guidelines he wanted to follow – and the Commission makes it very clear that the guidelines were in place but were not being implemented. Change only began to occur with the appointment of a new head of Child Protection Services Mr Phil Garland in 2003.
Bishop Drennan advises against anger and adds insult to injury when he describes our calls for accountability as vengeful. He says he met with 60 priests from the Diocese of Galway and seems to enjoy their full support. I have today emailed the Bishop and asked him to formally invite 60 victims of sexual abuse by priests in Dublin to come and meet him in Galway to express their views.
I reiterate my call for Bishop Martin Drennan to resign.
END - 27/12/2009
Bishop Drennan states that by the time of his appointment in 1997 child protection structures were already in place. The Framework document of 1996 which he refers to was flawed and Cardinal Connell told the Commission that it was not binding in canon or civil law so he could follow only those guidelines he wanted to follow – and the Commission makes it very clear that the guidelines were in place but were not being implemented. Change only began to occur with the appointment of a new head of Child Protection Services Mr Phil Garland in 2003.
Bishop Drennan advises against anger and adds insult to injury when he describes our calls for accountability as vengeful. He says he met with 60 priests from the Diocese of Galway and seems to enjoy their full support. I have today emailed the Bishop and asked him to formally invite 60 victims of sexual abuse by priests in Dublin to come and meet him in Galway to express their views.
I reiterate my call for Bishop Martin Drennan to resign.
END - 27/12/2009
Friday, December 25, 2009
DUBLIN ABUSE REPORT
I welcome the resignations of Bishop Eamonn Walsh and Bishop Raymond Field late yesterday evening. They were Bishops in the Archdiocese of Dublin during a time when the Commission of Investigation found that the sexual abuse of children by priests was covered up by the Archdiocese and other Church authorities.
I am grateful to each of the Bishops who has resigned since the publication of the Murphy Report. It is an important part of the healing process to know that those who were in positions of power and responsibility at a time when such abuse was taking place are accountable today for their actions or inactions when such abuse was brought to their attention.
It is important for me to live in a society where those who have subordinated the welfare of vulnerable children to the betterment of any institution learn that such behaviour is not acceptable.
I reiterate my call for Bishop Martin Drennan to resign.
I am grateful to each of the Bishops who has resigned since the publication of the Murphy Report. It is an important part of the healing process to know that those who were in positions of power and responsibility at a time when such abuse was taking place are accountable today for their actions or inactions when such abuse was brought to their attention.
It is important for me to live in a society where those who have subordinated the welfare of vulnerable children to the betterment of any institution learn that such behaviour is not acceptable.
I reiterate my call for Bishop Martin Drennan to resign.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
DUBLIN ABUSE REPORT
I welcome the resignation of Bishop James Moriarty. He was a Bishop in the Archdiocese of Dublin during a time when the Commission of Investigation found that the sexual abuse of children by priests was covered up by the Archdiocese and other Church authorities.
I note that both Bishop Murray and Bishop Moriarty have resigned for the good of the church and without accepting any responsibility for the cover up of child sexual abuse by priests. This is not surprising to me. In the Murphy Report:
Paragraph 1.15 tells us that all considerations, including the welfare of children, were subordinated to an overall priority which was the good of the church and,
Paragraph 1.59 tells us there was a disturbing failure to accept responsibility on behalf of some of the bishops who gave evidence.
It is plain to see that both of these findings of the Commission are still true of the Catholic bishops today.
I reiterate my earlier call for Bishops M Drennan, E Walsh and R Field to resign following publication of the Murphy Report.
END - 23/12/2009
I note that both Bishop Murray and Bishop Moriarty have resigned for the good of the church and without accepting any responsibility for the cover up of child sexual abuse by priests. This is not surprising to me. In the Murphy Report:
Paragraph 1.15 tells us that all considerations, including the welfare of children, were subordinated to an overall priority which was the good of the church and,
Paragraph 1.59 tells us there was a disturbing failure to accept responsibility on behalf of some of the bishops who gave evidence.
It is plain to see that both of these findings of the Commission are still true of the Catholic bishops today.
I reiterate my earlier call for Bishops M Drennan, E Walsh and R Field to resign following publication of the Murphy Report.
END - 23/12/2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)