"Liberal" Priest under investigation by Vatican

My name is URL

Founder of the Association of Catholic Priests Fr Tony Flannery is under investigation by the Vatican for his liberal views.

Fr Flannery confirmed to TheJournal.ie that the Vatican had contacted him to inform him of the investigation.

The Irish Catholic newspaper reported earlier today that the priest had to cease writing his monthly column in the Redemptorist Reality magazine as a result of the investigation.

Last summer, Fr Flannery welcomed Taoiseach Enda Kenny’s criticism of the Vatican’s handling of the child sex abuse scandal in Ireland.

The association, which has been described as a ‘dissident group’ by more conservative members of the Church, was also critical of recent changes to the Roman Missal. It has called for radical changes in the Catholic Church, including an overhaul of how bishops are chosen and its theology on sexuality. Some of its priests also agree with priests being allowed to marry and the ordination of female priests.

While in Ireland last month, the Apostolic Visitation said it observed a “certain tendency” for priests to hold opinions that conflict with those of the Magisterium, the Catholic Church’s teaching authority.

They stressed that dissent from the formal teachings of the Church were “not the authentic path towards renewal”.

http://www.thejournal.ie/liberal-priest-confirms-he-is-under-vatican-investigation-408748-Apr2012/

Good to see they have their priorities in order.. Rape a child, and in their eyes it's no big deal.. Suggest that priests should be allowed to marry and they'll come down on you like a tonne of bricks. Bunch of fcuking scumbags.

Why are more priests not vocally opposed to the whole hierarchal nature of the Church? Surely they see the damage being done by the Vatican.. it affects them more than anyone else.

Biggins

I posted on that site about a Drogheda priest whom they also shot down and told him to shut-up.
Rome has a history of dictators.
Some things don't change sadly, it seems!

lazygal

Don't forget the wimmins aren't allowed join the priesthood either. Pesky wimmins with their breasts and uteruses can't turn wafers into human flesh. Tsk.

Witcher

There was a priest in my own area who had similar views and stated them openly at mass a good few times. He was eventually moved on because some of the older Bible bashers didn't agree with his views and stopped attending mass, there's now a standard Vatican brainwashed priest back in the area and the front rows are once again a haven for the self righteous.

ancapailldorcha

Glad to see they have their priorities right.

lividduck

Ein Furher Ein Reich! (Strumbannfurher Ratizinger, aka papparattzi, aka Benni)

problemchimp

While I agree that the abuse of children is sick, and the Vatican covered up for these inhumane monsters, I think the rights of priests to marry is not something a priest should be banging on about. He knew the rules before he became a priest, if he has changed his views on this, then nobody is stopping him from leaving the priesthood.
And before I get attacked, I personally have no respect for the Catholic church or any religion for that matter.

Lando Griffin

With views like that one would wonder why he didn't do Protestant. Probably afraid he would end up in eternal damnnation. Who could blame him the poor devil.

My name is URL

problemchimp wrote: »

While I agree that the abuse of children is sick, and the Vatican covered up for these inhumane monsters, I think the rights of priests to marry is not something a priest should be banging on about. He knew the rules before he became a priest, if he has changed his views on this, then nobody is stopping him from leaving the priesthood.
And before I get attacked, I personally have no respect for the Catholic church or any religion for that matter.

Why should it be a case of put-up or shut-up, though? You could say the same about virtually any job, but there's no harm in trying to improve things.

problemchimp

My name is URL wrote: »

Why should it be a case of put-up or shut-up, though? You could say the same about virtually any job, but there's no harm in trying to improve things.

Yes this is true, but I don't think this is like any job. Also if you wanted to change things in your own job you wouldn't be writing articles about it, you would go speak with your boss. Maybe he should form a breakaway religion.

Toby Take a Bow

problemchimp wrote: »

Yes this is true, but I don't think this is like any job. Also if you wanted to change things in your own job you wouldn't be writing articles about it, you would go speak with your boss. Maybe he should form a breakaway religion.

You can try to change things in different ways. Maybe he found Ratzinger the sort of person who was not open to change (and if so, who could blame him). The Catholic doctrine isn't set in stone, and it's priests like this one that (may) help it evolve into a more liberal organisation. It's happened before (despite what some people may say).

KeithAFC

You either accept the teachings of the church or you don't. Go and join the reformers otherwise. Just my view on it. They all know what they got themselves into. I don't see the point of them questioning it now when they knew all this when they joined.

problemchimp

KeithAFC wrote: »

You either accept the teachings of the church or you don't. Go and join the reformers otherwise. Just my view on it. They all know what they got themselves into. I don't see the point of them questioning it now when they knew all this when they joined.

I never thought we'd agree on something Keith, but there you go.

lividduck

KeithAFC wrote: »

You either accept the teachings of the church or you don't. Go and join the reformers otherwise. Just my view on it. They all know what they got themselves into. I don't see the point of them questioning it now when they knew all this when they joined.

Oh yes, God (forgive the pun) forgive that priests should evolve , grow, and gain an enhanced view of society and humanity as they work with real people.
But as the old Nazi expression goes (and Strumbannfurher Ratizinger should be familiar with it) "Ein Furher, Ein Reich".

Toby Take a Bow

KeithAFC wrote: »

You either accept the teachings of the church or you don't. Go and join the reformers otherwise. Just my view on it. They all know what they got themselves into. I don't see the point of them questioning it now when they knew all this when they joined.

So what do you do when they initiate Vatican III? The Church can change, and has done in the past. It's just been quite resistant to change of late, despite plummeting numbers attending mass (in the west) and all the scandals.

KeithAFC

Toby Take a Bow wrote: »

So what do you do when they initiate Vatican III? The Church can change, and has done in the past. It's just been quite resistant to change of late, despite plummeting numbers attending mass (in the west) and all the scandals.

There is a good reason for that. Any more change and they would not be the Catholic church.

problemchimp

lividduck wrote: »

Oh yes, God (forgive the pun) forgive that priests should evole , grow, and gain an enhanced view of society and humanity as they work with real people.
But as the old Nazi expression goes (and Strumbannfurher Ratizinger should be familiar with it) "Ein Furher, Ein Reich".

Are you saying that the majority of priests want priests to be allowed to marry? Or indeed are you saying the majority of Catholics want priests to be allowed marry? If that's the case then the Vatican should look at it but I really don't feel that is the case.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

its a bit like the way I support man utd but wish they played tennis instead of football

problemchimp

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

its a bit like the way I support man utd but wish they played tennis instead of football

What?

Son Of A Vidic

There are many good priests in the Church and some probably think they can fix, that which is broken from within. Hence the reason they join perhaps. But ever since Constantine put his imperial seal of approval on the church and Romanised it. It became and has thus remained, a disgustingly power hungry, corrupt and hypocritical organisation which apparently provides a sanctuary for gross sexual deviants.

Toby Take a Bow

KeithAFC wrote: »

There is a good reason for that. Any more change and they would not be the Catholic church.

I'd agree. Not sure how that ties in with your post on how people below, though. If the Church is changing so much, why would you suggest people to join the reformers?

KeithAFC wrote: »

You either accept the teachings of the church or you don't. Go and join the reformers otherwise. Just my view on it. They all know what they got themselves into. I don't see the point of them questioning it now when they knew all this when they joined.

Dudess

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

its a bit like the way I support man utd but wish they played tennis instead of football

It's like a teacher or social worker or nurse doing something they had a calling for, or a belief in, etc, and after a number of years there, trying to implement change.
It isn't even slightly like your analogy.

KeithAFC

Toby Take a Bow wrote: »

I'd agree. Not sure how that ties in with your post on how people below, though. If the Church is changing so much, why would you suggest people to join the reformers?

The church isn't changing though is it? What my post was referring to is if they have doubts about the Church, just leave and join another Christian denomination.

My name is URL

KeithAFC wrote: »

You either accept the teachings of the church or you don't. Go and join the reformers otherwise. Just my view on it. They all know what they got themselves into. I don't see the point of them questioning it now when they knew all this when they joined.

So basically you're opposed to change? I'm shocked.. shocked!

Dudess

The doctrine of the catholic church is not conducive to modern life. There was Vatican II, why not Vatican III?

krudler

Toby Take a Bow wrote: »

So what do you do when they initiate Vatican III? The Church can change, and has done in the past. It's just been quite resistant to change of late, despite plummeting numbers attending mass (in the west) and all the scandals.

its all fcuking sequels these days, Vatican was great, then Vatican II: Priest Harder was a bit of a disappointment, they never live up to the hype.

Toby Take a Bow

KeithAFC wrote: »

The church isn't changing though is it? What my post was referring to is if they have doubts about the Church, just leave and join another Christian denomination.

It's not changing at the moment. But it has in the past. And depending on who's in charge, it will in the future. Case in point: Vatican II. But you can go further than that, with all the announcements made on doctrine through since the 4th century or so (and before).

marty1985

My name is URL wrote: »

So basically you're opposed to change? I'm shocked.. shocked!

Oddly, it's most others here who want the church to change with the times and become more liberal.

The church have to investigate a priest who goes completely off what they view as the correct teachings. While this is a great opportunity to bash the church and slap this guy on the back for not being One Of Them, think about it: what sort of church would it be if it didn't have official doctrines and teachings and a (oh, horror) hierarchy? It would be a Protestant church.

The Anglican church is losing a lot of people at the moment - I saw a news story yesterday about an entire village congregation and their priest converting to Roman Catholicism.

If you're not a Catholic you can slag them off - but a lot of people want the guidance that authority brings and not a church divided on itself like the Church of England over liberal reforms.

But it's a great opportunity to fantasise that they church will silence him mafia style.

marty1985

Dudess wrote: »

The doctrine of the catholic church is not conducive to modern life. There was Vatican II, why not Vatican III?

In fairness, I don't think they want to marry themselves to modern times (as the famous saying goes, the church that does soon finds itself a widow). They see themselves as protecting tradition. And the reforms of Vatican II are taking time to show their results.

Spread

The pope reigns over a corrupt entity ergo he is either corrupt or naive.

I guess you could also say that John Gotti was naive

Following Jesus' example? Gimme a break guv!

Run_to_da_hills

The Pope is just an ordinary man dressed up in a religious costume.

Freddie59

Blay wrote: »

There was a priest in my own area who had similar views and stated them openly at mass a good few times. He was eventually moved on because some of the older Bible bashers didn't agree with his views and stopped attending mass, there's now a standard Vatican brainwashed priest back in the area and the front rows are once again a haven for the self righteous.

As a Catholic I find the Church's behaviour increasingly more erratic and ridiculous. They now want to silence any voices of dissent. An arrogant attitude which needs to be removed. And now.

FWIW I don't consider myself a 'bible basher'. Like many priests, just someone trying to get on with daily life and help others whenever possible. I can assure you that many churchgoers do not agree with this type of carry-on, and let their feelings be known.

It is a sad day when a voice of reason is to be silenced. Yes the Church needs married priests; yes the church needs women priests, and so on.

Regarding your comment about the 'self-rigteous' there are a minority of people like this (we all know one). That does not mean that everyone is.

Realistically, the Irish Catholic church needs to cede from Rome if it is to survive. It is the only way forward.

Freddie59

Toby Take a Bow wrote: »

You can try to change things in different ways. Maybe he found Ratzinger the sort of person who was not open to change (and if so, who could blame him). The Catholic doctrine isn't set in stone, and it's priests like this one that (may) help it evolve into a more liberal organisation. It's happened before (despite what some people may say).

I sincerely hope that you are right Toby. And the sooner the better.

Stiffler2

P - Paeodophile
R - Residence
I - In
E - Every
S - Small
T - Town

Freddie59

problemchimp wrote: »

Are you saying that the majority of priests want priests to be allowed to marry? Or indeed are you saying the majority of Catholics want priests to be allowed marry? If that's the case then the Vatican should look at it but I really don't feel that is the case.

Don't know about the priests, But I, and many others, would be in favour of married and women priests. It's OK for a lady to be a lay minster - but not a priest? Stupidity of the highest order.

Freddie59

Stiffler2 wrote: »

P - Paeodophile
R - Residence
I - In
E - Every
S - Small
T - Town

Sweeping generalistaions. Wonderful post.:rolleyes:

Run_to_da_hills

Freddie59 wrote: »

Realistically, the Irish Catholic church needs to cede from Rome if it is to survive. It is the only way forward.

This will never happen, people need to seek the truth and break ties with this counterfeit Christian church altogether.

Benny_Cake

My name is URL wrote: »

http://www.thejournal.ie/liberal-priest-confirms-he-is-under-vatican-investigation-408748-Apr2012/

Good to see they have their priorities in order.. Rape a child, and in their eyes it's no big deal.. Suggest that priests should be allowed to marry and they'll come down on you like a tonne of bricks. Bunch of fcuking scumbags.

Why are more priests not vocally opposed to the whole hierarchal nature of the Church? Surely they see the damage being done by the Vatican.. it affects them more than anyone else.

Probably because of what is happening to Father Flannery at the moment. Step out of line and say something which could be perceived as progressive or liberal and some self-appointed "guardian of orthodoxy" in your congregation will snitch on you - it happened to a bishop in Australia in recent years. If the Association of Catholic Priests is crushed then that will just leave the hardliners,it'll be a small church but they'll be able to feel truly self-righteous.

smash

It's going to be hard for them to plant evidence to frame him so they can kick him out considering most of their victims don't have pubic hair that they can scatter around his bedroom.

howsyourtusk

Watching the church tear itself apart is a particularly enjoyable experience. Organised religion is just a bonkers concept in a modern society.

I Heart Internet

Freddie59 wrote: »

It's OK for a lady to be a lay minster - but not a priest? Stupidity of the highest order.

What's a lay minister???

Stiffler2

I Heart Internet wrote: »

What's a lay minister???

ministers who "lay" there victim down before abusing them ??

I Heart Internet

Freddie59 wrote: »

As a Catholic I find the Church's behaviour increasingly more erratic and ridiculous. They now want to silence any voices of dissent. An arrogant attitude which needs to be removed. And now.

Perhaps it seems more "erratic and ridiculous" because you haven't noticed it all along. The RCC has a right and a duty to prevent its teachers from teaching an incorrect, personalised version of the church's teachings.

Freddie59 wrote: »

FWIW I don't consider myself a 'bible basher'. Like many priests, just someone trying to get on with daily life and help others whenever possible. I can assure you that many churchgoers do not agree with this type of carry-on, and let their feelings be known.

What carry-on? Carry-on that you don't believe should be part of the teaching of the church anymore?

Freddie59 wrote: »

It is a sad day when a voice of reason is to be silenced.

If he's teaching personalised innaccuracies under the guise of authentic RCC teaching then he should be disciplined.

Freddie59 wrote: »

Yes the Church needs married priests; yes the church needs women priests, and so on.

No it doesn't. There - we both have equally valid opinions. But if I was a priest in the RCC telling my parishioners that women can be ordained priests I'd be a fraud.

Freddie59 wrote: »

Realistically, the Irish Catholic church needs to cede from Rome if it is to survive. It is the only way forward.

Absolutely wrong in my opinion. Populist, protestant nonsense.

The way forward is Christ and his Church.

marty1985

Freddie59 wrote: »

As a Catholic I find the Church's behaviour increasingly more erratic and ridiculous. They now want to silence any voices of dissent. An arrogant attitude which needs to be removed. And now.

Although, Freddie, a lot of Catholics would disagree. I want to play devil's advocate here. (My own opinion would be that I think married clergy could be a good thing, but I actually respect the Church for sticking to its principles at times.) Priests, having been trained and educated within the church, know they are sent out to propagate approved interpretations of the faith and not to select their own. It shouldn't be speaking with more than one voice. This is at variance with modern practice in the Church of England, where we can see clearly the results of 'liberal' reforms.

FWIW I don't consider myself a 'bible basher'.

I know, I've followed some good discussions you participated in.

It is a sad day when a voice of reason is to be silenced. Yes the Church needs married priests; yes the church needs women priests, and so on.

An alternative view would be that authority is important as there needs to be a coherent ecclesiology. They need to be able to identify error if they are to be able to identify truth. I sympathise because we live in a society now that rejects all authority, and authority in ideas in particular. Whatever people think of the Roman Catholic Church (which is to a high degree shaped by our media), the melt-down actually seems to be occuring in the Protestant church in England precisely because there is no external authority, so they are open to all sorts of erroneous ideas. The church, for the sake of its members, should always be suspicious of ideas and demands being spouted by self-described liberals, and I think Pope Benedict XVI has said publicly he is suspicious of Boardsies, who deride all religion but retain a particular venom for Catholics, and therefore demand to change the church, not from a position of struggling with the faith, but because they want to destroy it.

By the way, when the church "silence" someone, as sinister as it sounds, it usually means removing their license to teach Catholic theology. How could that not make sense? To use an example of one case, why should a Catholic theologian in a Catholic university be allowed to teach that Christ was not really divine?

kylith

With all the sex abuse scandals, and the priests questioning the non-ordination of women and celibacy I'm starting to think that the RCC is going to schism. I look forward to it.

I Heart Internet

kylith wrote: »

With all the sex abuse scandals, and the priests questioning the non-ordination of women and celibacy I'm starting to think that the RCC is going to schism. I look forward to it.

Much as you may look forward to it, there really is, objectively, no evidence that any schism is likely. A few hundred Austrian or Irish priest's populist rumblings is not a schism - if their consciences cannot permit them to remain as catholic priests or even catholics then they should leave. Discussion is one thing, hostile dissent is another.

marty1985

kylith wrote: »

With all the sex abuse scandals, and the priests questioning the non-ordination of women and celibacy I'm starting to think that the RCC is going to schism. I look forward to it.

I think that's wishful thinking on your part, to be fair. You've just thrown a mixed bag of stuff up in the air there, the kind of stuff that will get AH and atheist heads nodding sagely at your wisdom, but you could be overestimating the discontents within the church you hate.

goose2005

Dudess wrote: »

It's like a teacher or social worker or nurse doing something they had a calling for, or a belief in, etc, and after a number of years there, trying to implement change.
It isn't even slightly like your analogy.

More like a teacher in a mainstream school demanding to be allowed use Montessori methods, when there's a Montessori school just down the road that would be glad to have her.

marty1985

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Much as you may look forward to it, there really is, objectively, no evidence that any schism is likely. A few hundred Austrian or Irish priest's populist rumblings is not a schism - if their consciences cannot permit them to remain as catholic priests or even catholics then they should leave. Discussion is one thing, hostile dissent is another.

But a priest who speaks out will be a media darling, and again a distorted view will be presented in the media whereby a disproportionate number of priests "seem" to be rebelling against the "authoritarian", "conservative" German Pope.

And also, using the terms liberal and conservative in relation to the Church is just borrowed from the popular interest in politics. Nobody asks if the Dalai Lama is a liberal Buddhist, or a conservative Buddhist.

Min

Biggins wrote: »

I posted on that site about a Drogheda priest whom they also shot down and told him to shut-up.
Rome has a history of dictators.
Some things don't change sadly, it seems!

Explains politics and the party whip...

How long have we been living under a dictatorship for now?

I Heart Internet

marty1985 wrote: »

But a priest who speaks out will be a media darling, and again a distorted view will be presented in the media whereby a disproportionate number of priests "seem" to be rebelling against the "authoritarian", "conservative" German Pope.

Agree 100%. This is obvious from the portrayal by RTE and most other media outlets of the Association of Catholic Priests as the genuine, representative voice of RC priests in Ireland. It is nothing of the sort. It is a voice for its members (perhaps 10-15% of Irish priests) and, particularly, its leadership (including Fr Tony Flannery). In many ways the ACP and RTE is a match made in heaven. I'm just waiting for them to co-produce a dvd of liturgical dance.

marty1985 wrote: »

And also, using the terms liberal and conservative in relation to the Church is just borrowed from the popular interest in politics. Nobody asks if the Dalai Lama is a liberal Buddhist, or a conservative Buddhist.

Yes. The Liberal v Conservative tags are as meaningless in the church as they are in the rest of society.