Pope Francis's plea for forgiveness in 2018 ‘a great mark of the man'
The Archbishop of Armagh said that survivors' stories of abuse loomed over the 2018 trip and that a year later the pontiff gathered bishops from around the world to ensure safeguarding mechanisms were in place.
The pontiff's visit to Ireland in 2018, as part of the World Meeting of Families, was overshadowed by Ireland dealing with the legacy of abuse scandals by figures and institutions of the Catholic Church.
His visit prompted several demonstrations, including at a mass grave of infants at a former home for unmarried mothers in Co Galway, and at the Garden of Remembrance in Dublin.
Along with meeting homeless people at a centre run by the Capuchin Fathers and praying at the Knock shrine in Co Mayo, the Pope met with survivors of clerical abuse.
After meeting with survivors on Saturday evening, he penned a plea for forgiveness that he later delivered during an open-air mass in Phoenix Park.
During that address, he asked for 'forgiveness for the abuses in Ireland' and for 'pardon for all the abuses committed in various types of institutions'.
Archbishop of Dublin Dermot Farrell said the issue of mother and baby homes was 'very much in the fore' at the time.
'A mark of the man, he responded to that very spontaneously at the mass in the Phoenix Park, when he wrote his own penitential right shaped around what he had heard from some people who had found themselves in that home during their life.'
He said he introduced a formal document of the structure for dealing with cases of abuse and sexual abuse in the Catholic Church, including for not properly dealing with it.
The Dublin archbishop also said Francis himself admitted to making mistakes but had learned from them.
He added: 'When he came as Archbishop of Buenos Aires into the papacy, he had that great empathy for people who had suffered in their lives, and nobody has suffered more than people who have personally experienced sexual abuse or found themselves in difficult situations in life, and it was because of that empathy that he was able to offer his apology to these people, and that's a great mark of the man that we are mourning today.'
Archbishop of Armagh Eamon Martin said the 2018 visit was 'overshadowed by the story of abuse' but that the Pope confronted bishops around the world about abuse in 2019.
'By gathering the bishops of the entire world together in 2019 – I was present at that to represent the bishops of Ireland – he was making it very clear, abuse is a problem of humanity,' he said.
'It is a problem that is not unique to any one continent or to any one country. And he therefore confronted all of the bishops present to ensure that they had proper safeguarding mechanisms in place, that they had procedures for following up all survivors of abuse.'
Irish premier Micheal Martin said people would remember the Pope's 'expression of pain and shame' during the 2018 visit over historic child abuse in the Catholic Church and the failure of the religious institution to 'adequately address these appalling crimes'.
'In Ireland, I think, he did deal with the issues of child sexual abuse within the Catholic Church, acknowledged his own failings in that regard, and in many ways his non-judgmental approach to life itself enabled him to deal with these issues, perhaps ultimately more effectively than maybe others,' the Taoiseach said speaking at Fairyhouse.
'Subsequently, not in respect of Ireland, but he did comment that he had, in other instances, not responded as sufficiently, as appropriately as he should have, and he said that himself.
'I think overall he will be remembered as someone who cared deeply about each individual and was particularly hurt by the wrongs that were committed by members of the Church on people, particularly young children.'
Colm O'Gorman, a survivor of clerical abuse and the former head of Amnesty International Ireland, organised the rally at the Garden of Remembrance to coincide with the Phoenix Park Mass in 2018.
He said what Pope Francis delivered at the Mass was not an apology and no pope has yet apologised for abuse at Catholic institutions.
'I have yet to see a papal apology for abuse anywhere and it's always very frustrating when the statements that various popes have made over the years are presented as an apology,' he told PA.
'What popes generally do – and that includes, sadly, Pope Francis – is they speak of their regret and sadness, or sorrow at the hurt caused to so many people. That's not an apology. It's an expression of sorrow.
'No pope has ever done that (apologised). The Vatican has never, ever, ever acknowledged its central role in not just permitting these cover-ups to happen, but in directing these cover-ups.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
35 minutes ago
- The Independent
Vatican leak undermines Pope Francis and inflames debate over Latin Mass
The debate surrounding the traditional Latin Mass within the Catholic Church has intensified significantly in the early days of Pope Leo XIV 's pontificate. It follows the alleged leak of Vatican documents that appear to contradict the rationale behind his predecessor Pope Francis 's restrictions on the ancient liturgy. These documents reportedly indicate that a majority of Catholic bishops who participated in a 2020 Vatican survey expressed general satisfaction with the Latin Mass. Crucially, they warned that imposing restrictions would "do more harm than good". The texts, originating from the Vatican's doctrine office, were posted online on Tuesday by Vatican reporter Diane Montagna, who has closely followed the Latin Mass dispute. Neither the Vatican spokesman nor the prefect of the doctrine office immediately responded to requests for comment or confirmation of the documents' authenticity on Wednesday. If verified, the leaked information could place considerable pressure on Pope Leo to address the liturgical divisions that became particularly pronounced during Pope Francis's 12-year papacy, especially within the United States. Leo has consistently stated that his primary aim is to foster unity and reconciliation within the Church, and many conservatives and traditionalists view the Latin Mass controversy as an urgent matter requiring resolution. In one of his most controversial acts, Francis in 2021 reversed Pope Benedict XVI 's signature liturgical legacy and restricted access for ordinary Catholics to the old Latin Mass. The ancient liturgy was celebrated around the world before the modernising reforms of the 1960s Second Vatican Council, which allowed Mass to be celebrated in the vernacular, with the priest facing the pews. Francis said he was cracking down on the spread of the old liturgy because Benedict's decision in 2007 to relax restrictions had become a source of division in the church. Francis said at the time that he was responding to 'the wishes expressed' by bishops around the world who had responded to the Vatican survey, as well as the Vatican doctrine office's own opinion. 'The responses reveal a situation that preoccupies and saddens me, and persuades me of the need to intervene,' Francis wrote at the time. Benedict's relaxation had been "exploited to widen the gaps, reinforce the divergences, and encourage disagreements that injure the church, block her path, and expose her to the peril of division', he said. The documents posted online, however, paint a different picture. They suggest that the majority of bishops who responded to the Vatican survey had a generally favourable view of Benedict's reform and warned that suppressing or weakening it would lead traditionalist Catholics to leave the church and join schismatic groups. They warned any changes 'would seriously damage the life of the church, as it would recreate the tensions that the document had helped to resolve'. The documents include a five-page 'overall assessment' of the survey findings, written by the Vatican's doctrine office, as well as a seven-page compilation of quotes from individual bishops or bishops' conferences. The documents contain some negative and neutral opinions, and say some bishops considered Benedict's reform 'inappropriate, disturbing', dangerous and worthy of suppression. But the Vatican's own assessment said the majority of bishops who responded expressed satisfaction. It cited the rise in religious vocations in traditionalist communities and said young Catholics in particular were drawn to the 'sacredness, seriousness and solemnity of the liturgy'. It is not clear what other evidence, anecdotes or documentation informed Francis's decision to reverse Benedict. But from the very start, Francis was frequently critical of traditionalist Catholics, whom he accused of being navel-gazing retrogrades out of touch with the evangelising mission of the church in the 21st century. The new documents have comforted traditionalists who felt attacked and abandoned by Francis. 'The new revelations confirms that Pope Francis restricted the Traditional Mass at the request of only a minority of bishops, and against the advice of the dicastery in charge of the subject,' Joseph Shaw, of the Latin Mass Society of England and Wales, said. 'The majority view of the bishops, that restricting the TLM would cause more harm than good, has sadly been proved correct.' In an email, he said Leo should address the issue 'urgently'.
The Herald Scotland
5 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Is Scottish Government secretly working to kill off Ardrossan harbour?
Everyone who has made travel plans will have to adjust accordingly or cancel, including visitors from far and near heading for a major Gaelic festival, Ceòlas, in South Uist. Mallaig and Oban are 87 miles apart, while accommodation tends to be at a premium in July. Just their luck – one more example of consequences which continues to be visited upon people and islands. This fresh wave of cancellations and redeployments stems from the basic fact that the CalMac fleet has been run aground in terms of numbers and maintenance, despite millions being spent, quite literally in some cases, on plugging the holes. CalMac say plaintively: 'We are doing the best we can to maintain service levels with the vessels available to us during this period'. Read more As I never tire of pointing out, CalMac are more sinned against than sinners. They are at the sharp end of delivery while the real culprits are the Scottish Government (aka Transport Scotland) and its procurement quango, CMAL, which have failed to provide the routine flow of vessels required. Ferries which are a decade and more past their natural lifespan are worked harder and harder, with predictable consequences. After three years of setting its face against any compensation for businesses, the Scottish Government noticed there is an election coming up and conceded through gritted teeth a 'resilience fund' for the worst-hit islands. Arran is included but, not being an island, Ardrossan is not. Yet there are few places that have endured more economic pain than the port which had been the gateway to Arran for 185 years. What distinguishes the case of Ardrossan is that it is, in my belief, the victim of a long-term strategy to extinguish its role and thereby, to a large extent, its raison d'etre. Other places in the CalMac network are victims of incompetence and political opportunism even if nobody set out to do them harm. The case of Ardrossan is different and those responsible should be exposed and their objective, even now, frustrated. The story goes back to 2015 when Troon – part of Associated British Ports – lost its Northern Ireland connection when P&O dropped its Larne route. Desperate to plug the gap, they offered the Scottish Government £8 million to transfer the Arran service to Troon. There is no retrospective wisdom involved here as I wrote at the time that this initiative was 'solely at the behest of Associated British Ports, which has lost its Irish services and needs a substitute. It is blatantly opportunistic'. CalMac will restart a limited and temporary service (Image: free) ABP should have been shown the door. By this time, what later became the Glen Sannox had been ordered from the Ferguson yard, specifically to operate between Ardrossan and Brodick. There should have been no room for doubt but ABP, to my certain knowledge, had friends at court. The Transport Minister, one Humza Yousaf, ordered a review, which set the hare running. A campaign was mounted in defence of Ardrossan and, ostensibly, it prevailed. But it didn't really. When the Glen Sannox was ordered, it was supposed to be operational by 2018 so obviously, it was necessary for CMAL to be in negotiation with the owners of Ardrossan, Peel Ports. Otherwise, how could it happen? Due to events at the Ferguson yard, there was then a seven year delay in delivering the Glen Sannox – but in the course of these nine years, not a finger was lifted to secure the status of Ardrossan. On the contrary, the quiet transition to Troon continued to be encouraged, supposedly to give temporary cover while awaiting Ardrossan's readiness. For good measure, in October of last year, the Transport Secretary, Fiona Hyslop, appointed Stuart Cresswell who, until 2023, had 'full operational responsibility for all of ABP's port operations in Scotland including the Port of Troon' to the board of CMAL. But like I say, there is an election coming up and my old constituency of Cunninghame North is up for grabs. The votes of Ardrossan will be significant so on February 19, Ms Hyslop 'instructed Transport Scotland and CMAL to explore a potential purchase of Ardrossan Harbour'. Little has been heard of this since. I was curious to learn how much substance there was to this 'instruction', so I lodged a Freedom of Information request with CMAL, asking to see the exchanges between them and the Scottish Government about Ardrossan in recent months. This week I got the response, with around 95 per cent of the content redacted on the catch-all grounds that 'the balance of public interest lies in withholding the information'. Read more However, one interesting line had either slipped through the net or been left in deliberately, in which the chief executive of CMAL, Kevin Hobbs, wrote, the week following Ms Hyslop's instruction: 'We do not believe and have expressly stated that resilience at Ardrossan (given the entrance through the roundheads and turn) will never be as resilient as Troon given the open sea approach'. In other words, the chief executive of CMAL could hardly have been clearer that they have no interest in pursuing what, in public, has been their obligation and the Scottish Government's aim. So the question now is whether Ms Hyslop's 'instruction' is ever intended to prevail? I make no claim to nautical expertise but that is not the issue at stake. The real question is whether, consistent with Mr Hobbs' comments, CMAL and Transport Scotland have been (and still are) working to ensure that Ardrossan never again will be the gateway port for Arran. If that is the case – as I believe it is – the people of Arran and Ardrossan have, for the past decade, been cynically and cruelly deceived. To that, I object strongly – and call for an inquiry into the full circumstances, without evasions or redactions. Brian Wilson is a former Labour Party politician. He was MP for Cunninghame North from 1987 until 2005 and served as a Minister of State from 1997 to 2003
Spectator
12 hours ago
- Spectator
Tim Davie shouldn't quit over Glastonbury
There probably never has been a time when a governing party much liked its MPs. If you are on a mission, as governments imagine they are, you are always impatient when your own side raises objections. But it is only recently that governments have seemed positively affronted by the idea that their MPs should have a say. This was encapsulated by Sir Keir Starmer when he dismissed Labour's backbench revolt over welfare cuts as 'noises off'. Off what, exactly? Legislators have the sole right to legislate and that includes the right to refuse legislation. Those, like Rachael Maskell, who parade their consciences may be tiresome, but there is no way of governing this country except through parliament (though people like Lord Hermer are striving mightily to alter this). Prime ministers are oddly blind to the ultimate consequence, which is that their MPs get rid of them. Sir Keir's blindness led to his capitulation on Monday night, turning his gigantic majority into his potentially fatal problem. It is always confusing for the BBC to decide what to ban, cut or edit. In 1972, in the wake of Bloody Sunday, it banned Paul McCartney's rather tame song 'Give Ireland back to the Irish' ('Great Britain, you are tremendous/And nobody knows like me/ But really, what are you doin'/ In the land across the sea?') but allowed John Lennon's 'Sunday Bloody Sunday' which attacked 'You Anglo pigs and Scotties/ Sent to colonise the North', complained about 'the concentration camps' (unspecified) in Northern Ireland and regretted that although 'the cries of 13 martyrs filled the free Derry air', 'not a soldier boy was bleeding/ When they nailed the coffin lids'. If you do not have your own moral compass, you will be guided only by levels of public outrage and will find these hard to predict. In the case of Bob Vylan, the story is about management of coverage, not endorsement, of dreadful views. It does not exhibit the monstrous anti-Israel bias daily apparent in BBC documentaries, news reports, BBC Verify, BBC Arabic, Jeremy Bowen etc. It is more a lack of due diligence. I doubt the resignation of Tim Davie would produce visible improvement. He is actually the first D-G even to admit and pursue the anti-Semitism problem. More shocking is the way the Glastonbury crowd (and therefore, unthinkingly, the BBC) rolls with this type of thing. If – unimaginable, I know – an extreme-right popstar had appeared and announced that he hated 'Zionists' and that Israeli soldiers should die, he would have been howled down. But the left has so normalised Islamist extremism that the overwhelmingly white, middle-class establishment audience has no sense of its weirdness. In a passage not widely reported, Bob Vylan announced to the Glastoholics, 'We are not pacifist punks here. We are the violent punks.' Some of them cheered. Was that a tattoo of a guillotine that I saw on his right arm? Does Glastonbury have to suffer the fate of the Manchester Arena before they understand? Ex-prime ministers are sparing in their public interventions. So far as I can see, Rishi Sunak had made only one Commons speech (as opposed to asking questions) since leaving office – on Rachel Reeves's first Budget. Last week, however, he made his second, in Westminster Hall. It began: 'I last spoke on this subject in this very place back in 2016. A lot has changed in the last nine years – notably, ten chief secretaries to the Treasury, seven chancellors and, indeed, five prime ministers – but one thing that has not changed is my view on grouse shooting.' From that good start, Mr Sunak went on to argue that the sport 'is a part of our local social fabric, and… one of the world's great conservation success stories'. He criticised the tendency of 'some conservationists… to act as though farmers and gamekeepers are somehow trespassing on Britain's landscape, but without their hands repairing our dry-stone walls or their dairy cows keeping the fields lush, the rural beauty of our countryside would soon fade. Heather moorland… is rarer than rainforest, and 75 per cent of it is found right here in Britain. It is a national treasure.' The fanatic Chris Packham, who was attending the debate, was seen to hold his head in his hands as he listened. I hope this oration marks the start of Mr Sunak's comeback. Charm is easy to recognise but notoriously hard to describe. Sandy Gall, who has just died aged 97, had it. When he and the tipsy Reggie Bosanquet co-presented ITN News in the 1970s, charm was visible nightly on the nation's screens. It had something to do with being at ease, a lack of self-importance and the sense that the pair were often repressing laughter. Sandy retained these qualities in many dangerous situations covering wars for more than half a century, and into old age. In 2010, when he was 82, we accompanied him to Afghanistan. It was supposed to be a holiday, plus a visit to the charity which he had established to give prosthetic limbs to children injured by the war when he first covered Afghanistan, hidden in Russian-occupied territory, in the 1980s. Sandy's two rules for later journeys there were that he should never have security – it just makes one a target, he said – and that he should always carry a bottle of whisky, which was illegal. It being high summer, he had advised us not to bring waterproofs, but when we flew in a light aircraft to see Bamiyan and the mountainside which held the colossal Buddhas smashed in their niches by the Taliban, we found the place flooded. The airport was on a plateau. Our hotel was visible below, surrounded by water. Undismayed, Sandy ordered ten donkeys to carry us through the inundation and breakfast to eat until these could be found. By the time we had finished the breakfast, the waters had sufficiently receded for the donkeys to be laid off. He was a dear man, neither broken by the horrors of war, nor puffed up by his courage in the face of them – a true reporter.
