Buggery OK but talking about Women Priests gets you silenced

The Daily Beast

Pity they blackballed this guy rather than stopping the buggering of altar boys:

The Vatican has been watching Father Tony Flannery for a long time. The popular Irish Catholic priest has candidly voiced his liberal—and critical—views on the church, becoming a beacon of reason to his many of his loyal readers.

He questioned celibacy and was an advocate of ordaining women into the priesthood, frequently writing about how women priests could help the church bring more Catholics to mass. To many, Flannery channeled the pop vox of today’s Catholics who wanted to keep the faith, but couldn’t easily navigate the church’s tough stance on issues like contraception and divorce.

But to his critics, his writing bordered on heresy.

The Vatican clearly has had enough of Flannery and last week silenced the 65-year-old priest. Just days before Easter, Flannery, a prolific and longtime columnist for the Redemptorist Order’s monthly magazine, Reality, was told he can no longer write on any of the church-doctrine issues.

Flannery publicly supported Irish Prime Minister Enda Kenny’s harsh criticism of the Vatican’s handling of the Irish church sex scandal. Reality editor Gerard Moloney has also been reprimanded for allowing Flannery’s prose to make it into print. Future editions of the magazine will now have to be reviewed by a Vatican-approved theologian. In the meantime, Flannery has reportedly been sent to a monastery for six weeks of prayer and contemplation.


THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • nzd.gbp

    That has all the makings of a blockbuster. What a great story.

  • Blokeintakapuna

    The church is all about power. Power for them to control the masses through the doctrine they decide to dictate. Marriage is a fine example. Today marriage is almost irrelevant in some circles – no one “must” be married before they can live with a member of the opposite sex, or even someone of the same sex if they choose. Marriage is a fine institution, but it is a man-made institution designed too help the Church and State control the masses.
    It’s only human egos trying vying for more “power” in their chosen vocation – all trying to tell the masses what is and isn’t good or bad for them – yet they deliberately hide and shelter known paedophiles for decades – that we know of in our lifetime. Imagine the deceit over Centuries? Bunch of hypocrites!
    Human ego’s vying for one-upmanship. How else can the differences between the Old Testament and the New Testament be explained? It’s certainly not God’s law’s but rather an interpretation by some egotistical individual living in a vacuum trying to enforce their will upon others. Just that alone completely erodes the “church’s” credibility as some form of moral compass.

    • nzd.gbp

      How else can the differences between the old and new testaments be explained?
      Let me try!
      The old testament gave the laws and descriptions of people who lived under and against those laws as well as some nice moral tales and history. The new testament described the intent of those laws and their ultimate fulfilment when Jesus, who was blameless, took on the punishment for transgressing against these laws and also made the sacrifice to end all sacrifices, so any sacrifices we make are now unworthy in comparison because we are sinners and probably deserve to get some payback. You can choose whether or not to accept that his sacrifice was ultimate and that he was worthy to pay the price for your transgression on your behalf or not. That’s what makes you a christian or not. Whether you consider that you are ultimately responsible for your own transgressions, or whether you will invoke Jesus’s grace and hand over the receipt for his payment when you are called to account. This is probably what those who read the best selling book of all time would tell you anyway. I’m saving you the time. Also technically the church is the bride of christ, i.e. those who accept his divinity and sacrifice and are bound to him and become one with him, irrevocably. The vatican is a political institution and calling it the church is this context is probably blasphemy, or perhaps they are but just a really really bad wife. A child abusing, power wielding, filthy rich, estranged wife who is still cashing in on her husband’s success.

      • Blokeintakapuna

        Yep – I hear ya – however that still doesn’t explain the “editing” between the Old and the New.

        The editing / sensorship was still done by man.

        Man has ago / faults / preferences / prejudjudices / blind sides / failings – as well as numerous good aspects also lest we not forget.

        But put this same man in an ideological vaccuum surrounded by a cotton wool sheltered existance coupled with ego’s vying for career promotions wihtin the Church = opportunity for exploitation / corruption / twisted outcomes.

        Graham Capill is a prime example. Another is “Bishop” Tamaki…

        ‘enough said… 

      • nzd.gbp

        The editing and censorship may have been done by man but when Jesus ascended to heaven he told us that the holy spirit would stick around and teach us this stuff. That kind of let’s them off the hook for doing a hatchet job on God’s word and being responsible for our subsequent errors I guess. There is a verse somewhere that warns against messing with the word of God but it’s not for me to decide whether the omissions were God’s word or not and whether leaving them in would be a corruption or not. That’s up to God. 

        There is also a verse that says something like – by their fruit you shall know them, which helps to identify whether followers of certain teachings are up to scratch or not. However it must go both ways. If the “church” is an evil empire then what does it say about their boss?

        I’ve been to the vatican and it is proper choice. Great museum filled with cool egyptian artefacts and renaissance art that almost makes you believe in God. I can’t help but think that they should sell this stuff and spend the cash on Aids and cancer research and schools and hospitals in their parishes in south america and africa and stuff like that. Or in compensation for the victims of their abuses. I’d say that would go a long way to attracting punters back.

      • Random66

        Nicely said nzd.gbp.  In times gone by Flannery would have probably been silenced by the Catholic church in a whole different way (heresy and witchcraft come to mind). Perhaps he needs to take a leaf out of Martin Luthers book when dealing with ‘the establishment’.

      •  Thanks – that saved me a lot of reading….

  • Petal

  • Cameron,

    Buggery is never OK.  There is also no either/or in this story.

    • My point is the Church acts with great alacrity to deal with a priest speaking about women priests but still largely remains silent on the issue of priest buggering altar boys.

  • Peter Wilson

    An interesting, if somewhat bigoted view of politics in religion. Religion is all about power, the same as any organisation where people are involved. We saw it in NZ politics on a minor scale, what else were the Smith and Collins scandals all about?

    • nzd.gbp

      Who are you referring to as a bigot?

      • Peter Wilson

        Clearly not WO, if that is what worries you. Nadeau has a tendency to visit upon her readers views that indicate a reluctance to depart from populist thinking. Some improvement in her atelophobian writing style would no doubt lessen the accusatorial style of my comments towards her.