Two Questions about the “Summary”
Is there anyone out there who can answer these two questions about the “Summary of Findings of the Apostolic Visitation?
First: The Visitation was to be about the church in Ireland. We already know that it’s from the Holy See. They make sure to protect themselves from Enda Kenny in the second paragraph by saying, “it was not intended to interfere with the ordinary activity of the local magistrates …”
Why does the Holy See repeatedly refer to itself, and this under various different guises? “The Holy Father”, “the Holy See”, “Pope Benedict XVI”, “Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith”, “the Magisterium” “the Successor of Peter”. It refers to the “Holy See” eleven times.
It’s almost as if they’re afraid we’ll forget that they haven’t gone away.
Second: We have faced and survived Ferns, Ryan, Murphy and Cloyne, and wall-to-wall coverage in the media. What is so terrible about the findings of the Visitation that they can only bear to let us have a summary? We know some parts of the Irish reports were omitted for a time for legal reasons, but we got the full reports apart from that. Do they think we’re too feeble to be able to take whatever the full findings are? The findings are about us. We contributed to them. It feels disrespectful and patronising to give us this anaemic summary which says little that could not have been said before the Visitation, apart from the fact that the Visitation took place.
The last paragraph says, “The Holy See entrusts its conclusions to the responsibility of the Bishops, clergy, Religious and lay faithful of Ireland, in the hope that they will bear fruit worthy of that process of healing, reparationa and renewal which Pope Benedict XVI so eagerly desires for the beloved Church in Ireland.” So why not let us have the full findings?
Despite having lived for four great years in Rome, the culture gap (to say the least) revealed here is shocking.