vrijdag, januari 31, 2014
donderdag, januari 30, 2014
woensdag, januari 29, 2014
vroege vogel gesnotter ik heb nog nooit zo'n schat gehad
dinsdag, januari 28, 2014
Sijsies en drijfsijsies in de lorembloempjesblauwe amereetsias
 |
| shoot |
'sssss Heerenduin
Zij dronk ranja met een rietje
en was hollands als het gras
op een amsterdams terras
Lewis Blayse The Author’s Rebuttal To Mr. McClellan’s Reasons For Non-Permission To Appear At The Salvation Army Boys’ Homes Hearings And Present A Submission (Or: McClellan Rules, O.K.?)
January 27, 2014
Now that it is official that I will not be permitted, by the chairman of the Australian royal commission into institutional responses to child sexual abuse, Peter McClellan, to give evidence on my old Boys’ Home, “Alkira” – otherwise known as the Indooroopilly Salvation Army Home for Boys – it is time to explain some things. (The commission has stated that my case fell within its terms of reference, so that is not a point of dissention.):
-It was the practice when I was in the Home for new boys to be put in the bunk next to mine, and I was to help them learn the Home routines, and help them feel a bit better (they usually cried most of the night for the first couple of days). In effect, I gave them “pastoral” care
-.Because of the above, the boys had considerable trust in me, and possibly some affection. They confided in me about the abuses they experienced.
-When it was known that I would be leaving the Boys’ Home to go to my own home, at least twenty boys asked me to get their story out to the public and authorities.
-I have gotten my own story out on many occasions in the media and to other enquiries, so I was not intending to say much about my own case, except where necessary to make some sort of academic point, such as the officers having “sadistic arousal”, or the concept of “learned helplessness”.
-I wanted to tell the stories of those twenty or so boys, all of which I remember quite clearly after 50 years.
-I asked to have the floor “INTERRUPTED” (because I would need to take breaks because of a psychosomatic condition resulting from the violent atmosphere at the Home, whereby I can become physically sick if in the presence of strangers for more than an hour or so).
-The commission gave one of its reasons for the refusal as being that I had made the unreasonable demand that I be “UNINTERRUPTED”. That is a lie. (The relevant e-mail exchanges are available as proof).
-The commission made out I was asking to have the full first day for myself. This is also a lie on two accounts. As explained above, it was for the other boys. Secondly, most of the time of the first day is taken up by long-winded opening statements by Counsel Assisting and Salvation Army lawyers etc. and general procedural matters.
-Consequently, I would, (allowing for a ten-minute break to calm down every hour or so), have about ten minutes for each boy’s story, if that. Given what happened to them, and the fact that many are now dead, disabled, or incarcerated, that is not an overly long time to tell their stories.
-The commission said it was unreasonable that I would not agree to be cross-examined by $6,000 a day barristers. (The Northern Ireland Historical Institutional Abuse – HIA – enquiry does not permit this). I cannot agree that the victims should be subjected to a court procedure, which is sometimes abused, when a royal commission is not a court. Victims should not be subjected to further psychological abuse in that way. I remain adamant on this point.
-I did not say that I would not answer questions. I said that I would be available, later in the hearings, to answer specific questions FROM THE COMMISSIONERS, to elaborate on detail, or otherwise explain, some of the more academic concepts I may have spoken about, such as “learned helplessness”.
-The commission has chosen to hide behind technicalities of its terms of reference. However, these can be changed, and indeed have been changed already, to accommodate the State enquiries.
-Finally, it has been suggested that my appearance would mean that someone else would not be heard. The former Prime Minister clearly wanted us ALL to be heard, which is why six commissioners, rather than one, were appointed and such a long time allowed for its sitting.
-I am of the view that ALL who want to appear publicly should be able to do so (as is the case for the Northern Ireland HIA enquiry), not just three or four selected by the commission to meet with its own agenda, with no reasons given for the selection.
-McClellan is on record (see previous posting) as saying that private hearings were for people WHO DID NOT WANT TO GIVE EVIDENCE IN PUBLIC. This makes a mockery of the claim that I had been offered a private hearing. (Indeed, the final offer was only to talk over the phone with a lawyer from the commission to explain things about “sadistic arousal” and the voyeurism associated with shower time).
-The phone conversations with commission people stressed their authority, to the extent of addressing me as “sir” (as in a police officer saying “Would you please step out of the car, sir”). As any therapist would know, like most people, but especially for “Home” people, if asked nicely we will do anything for anybody, but if ORDERED to do something, we tend to get our backs up.
-The thought arises that, either the commission staff does not know such a fundamental aspect of victims of brutal uniformed Salvation Army men (or women), or it was done deliberately to set up a reaction in me that would make me appear unreasonable, and thereby provide an excuse for denying me my voice. This I cannot know.
I could say a lot more, but I do not want to bore the reader.
Finally, I would like to say to those, anonymous, people who sent e-mails suggesting I am being selfish etc: You should give thanks to your “God” that you were fortunate enough not to have ended up in a Salvation Army Children’s Home.
[Postscript: “The royal commission’s public hearings will be formal. When you enter and exit the hearing room, it is customary to pause and bow your head towards the Australian coat of arms above where the Commissioners sit. When a Commissioner enters or leaves the hearing room [Ed.: perhaps to go to the bathroom?], it is customary to stand and bow your head. You should remain standing until each Commissioner has entered the room and been seated or has left the room, or until the Presiding Commissioner indicates for people to be seated.” Source: Royal Commission Protocols].
TOMORROW: Who cares?
That’s all I can say
Lewis Blayse (né Lewin Blazevich)
-It was the practice when I was in the Home for new boys to be put in the bunk next to mine, and I was to help them learn the Home routines, and help them feel a bit better (they usually cried most of the night for the first couple of days). In effect, I gave them “pastoral” care
-.Because of the above, the boys had considerable trust in me, and possibly some affection. They confided in me about the abuses they experienced.
-When it was known that I would be leaving the Boys’ Home to go to my own home, at least twenty boys asked me to get their story out to the public and authorities.
-I have gotten my own story out on many occasions in the media and to other enquiries, so I was not intending to say much about my own case, except where necessary to make some sort of academic point, such as the officers having “sadistic arousal”, or the concept of “learned helplessness”.
-I wanted to tell the stories of those twenty or so boys, all of which I remember quite clearly after 50 years.
-I asked to have the floor “INTERRUPTED” (because I would need to take breaks because of a psychosomatic condition resulting from the violent atmosphere at the Home, whereby I can become physically sick if in the presence of strangers for more than an hour or so).
-The commission gave one of its reasons for the refusal as being that I had made the unreasonable demand that I be “UNINTERRUPTED”. That is a lie. (The relevant e-mail exchanges are available as proof).
-The commission made out I was asking to have the full first day for myself. This is also a lie on two accounts. As explained above, it was for the other boys. Secondly, most of the time of the first day is taken up by long-winded opening statements by Counsel Assisting and Salvation Army lawyers etc. and general procedural matters.
-Consequently, I would, (allowing for a ten-minute break to calm down every hour or so), have about ten minutes for each boy’s story, if that. Given what happened to them, and the fact that many are now dead, disabled, or incarcerated, that is not an overly long time to tell their stories.
-The commission said it was unreasonable that I would not agree to be cross-examined by $6,000 a day barristers. (The Northern Ireland Historical Institutional Abuse – HIA – enquiry does not permit this). I cannot agree that the victims should be subjected to a court procedure, which is sometimes abused, when a royal commission is not a court. Victims should not be subjected to further psychological abuse in that way. I remain adamant on this point.
-I did not say that I would not answer questions. I said that I would be available, later in the hearings, to answer specific questions FROM THE COMMISSIONERS, to elaborate on detail, or otherwise explain, some of the more academic concepts I may have spoken about, such as “learned helplessness”.
-The commission has chosen to hide behind technicalities of its terms of reference. However, these can be changed, and indeed have been changed already, to accommodate the State enquiries.
-Finally, it has been suggested that my appearance would mean that someone else would not be heard. The former Prime Minister clearly wanted us ALL to be heard, which is why six commissioners, rather than one, were appointed and such a long time allowed for its sitting.
-I am of the view that ALL who want to appear publicly should be able to do so (as is the case for the Northern Ireland HIA enquiry), not just three or four selected by the commission to meet with its own agenda, with no reasons given for the selection.
-McClellan is on record (see previous posting) as saying that private hearings were for people WHO DID NOT WANT TO GIVE EVIDENCE IN PUBLIC. This makes a mockery of the claim that I had been offered a private hearing. (Indeed, the final offer was only to talk over the phone with a lawyer from the commission to explain things about “sadistic arousal” and the voyeurism associated with shower time).
-The phone conversations with commission people stressed their authority, to the extent of addressing me as “sir” (as in a police officer saying “Would you please step out of the car, sir”). As any therapist would know, like most people, but especially for “Home” people, if asked nicely we will do anything for anybody, but if ORDERED to do something, we tend to get our backs up.
-The thought arises that, either the commission staff does not know such a fundamental aspect of victims of brutal uniformed Salvation Army men (or women), or it was done deliberately to set up a reaction in me that would make me appear unreasonable, and thereby provide an excuse for denying me my voice. This I cannot know.
I could say a lot more, but I do not want to bore the reader.
Finally, I would like to say to those, anonymous, people who sent e-mails suggesting I am being selfish etc: You should give thanks to your “God” that you were fortunate enough not to have ended up in a Salvation Army Children’s Home.
[Postscript: “The royal commission’s public hearings will be formal. When you enter and exit the hearing room, it is customary to pause and bow your head towards the Australian coat of arms above where the Commissioners sit. When a Commissioner enters or leaves the hearing room [Ed.: perhaps to go to the bathroom?], it is customary to stand and bow your head. You should remain standing until each Commissioner has entered the room and been seated or has left the room, or until the Presiding Commissioner indicates for people to be seated.” Source: Royal Commission Protocols].
TOMORROW: Who cares?
That’s all I can say
Lewis Blayse (né Lewin Blazevich)
maandag, januari 27, 2014
Duitse Kerk redt haar eigen falliete Weltbild
De bisdommen Augsburg en München-Freising willen voor ongeveer 35
miljoen garant staan om het concern van de religieuze uitgeverij en
online-boekenwinkel Weltbild en boekhandel Hugendubel te redden.
Het miljardenconcern, waar in totaal ongeveer zesduizend mensen werken, is een onderneming van de katholieke kerk. Als de bisdommen niet over de brug zouden komen zou de curator het bedrijf moeten opsplitsen.
Het vakblad Buchreport maakte in 2011 bekend dat de katholieke uitgeversgroep behoorlijk wat geld verdiende met erotische uitgaven. Tegenstanders van deze praktijk wezen erop dat de kerk, via uitgeverij Weltbild, al jaren verdiende aan pornografische boeken, verheerlijking van geweld, esoterische praktijken en satanisme.
Lees meer bij Süddeutsche Zeitung
Zie tevens artikel Duitse katholieke kerk verdient vermogen met porno
Het miljardenconcern, waar in totaal ongeveer zesduizend mensen werken, is een onderneming van de katholieke kerk. Als de bisdommen niet over de brug zouden komen zou de curator het bedrijf moeten opsplitsen.
Het vakblad Buchreport maakte in 2011 bekend dat de katholieke uitgeversgroep behoorlijk wat geld verdiende met erotische uitgaven. Tegenstanders van deze praktijk wezen erop dat de kerk, via uitgeverij Weltbild, al jaren verdiende aan pornografische boeken, verheerlijking van geweld, esoterische praktijken en satanisme.
Lees meer bij Süddeutsche Zeitung
Zie tevens artikel Duitse katholieke kerk verdient vermogen met porno
Cry of the raped; Japans wereldbeeld biedt excuses voor opmerking over 'troostmeisjes'
27/01/14
Trouw
De nieuwe topman van de Japanse publieke omroep heeft zijn excuses aangeboden voor bagatelliserende opmerkingen over 'troostmeisjes', vrouwen die tijdens de Tweede Wereldoorlog als prostituee voor het Japanse leger moesten werken. Omroepbaas Katsuto Momii had zich in de nesten gewerkt door zich te verbazen over de telkens terugkerende ophef rond het onderwerp.
Trouw
De nieuwe topman van de Japanse publieke omroep heeft zijn excuses aangeboden voor bagatelliserende opmerkingen over 'troostmeisjes', vrouwen die tijdens de Tweede Wereldoorlog als prostituee voor het Japanse leger moesten werken. Omroepbaas Katsuto Momii had zich in de nesten gewerkt door zich te verbazen over de telkens terugkerende ophef rond het onderwerp.
Momii bood maandag zijn excuses aan en zei dat zijn uitspraken bij nader inzien 'zeer ongepast' waren. De Japanse regering had eerder al laten weten dat Momii 'zijn uitspraken als privépersoon deed' en dus niet namens de omroep.
Japanse soldaten verkrachtten tijden de Tweede Wereldoorlog stelselmatig vrouwen in bezette landen, waaronder het toenmalige Nederlands-Indië. De vrouwen werden eufemistisch troostmeisjes genoemd.
zondag, januari 26, 2014
koeiepoten; eentje ga je mee
allemaal leuk lief en aardig natuurlijk
maar mooi dat ik ondertussen nog steeds geen flauw idee heb hoe ik 't in vredesnaam voor mekaar zou moeten krijgen om in mijn eendje met die metro te gaan
zaterdag, januari 25, 2014
New list of missing, murdered aboriginal women gives families hope
The number of missing and murdered women in Canada may be much higher than previously believed, new research shows, giving hope to families seeking answers about their loved ones the new figures will spark fresh action from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Pearce cross-referenced newspaper articles, police reports, court documents and other resources as part of her database.
The latest figure is much higher than the 582 names the Native Women's Association of Canada compiled
and handed over to the RCMP in 2009.
# 82 Open letter to Bishop Tony Krotki of the Churchill-Hudson Bay diocese
January 24, 2014
nunatsiaqonline
“Please tell the truth. It will set you free.”
NUNATSIAQ NEWS “The truth will set you free,” is a phrase you must know very well. Pope Benedict XVI used it frequently, even in the heat of the 2010 sexual abuse crisis.In your diocese many people have been suffering, for many long years, from the consequences of the sexual and physical abuse by your brothers in the residential schools, and in the parishes of different communities.
 |
| atii atii atii pisulirit inuusirmi |
But do you know what is even more painful? Not knowing the truth about what happened with the priest or brother or sister who abused. Not receiving honest answers when you ask questions on how these things were allowed to happen. Not being able to obtain justice for what happened to you.
No one of your church was in the courtroom in Iqaluit during those first weeks of the trial of Mr. Dejaeger. No one to listen to the brave victims testifying about the horrors. No one to see how relieved they were after having testified and to hear them say “an enormous weight was lifted off my shoulders.”
If you had been there, you would have realized that obtaining justice is essential for their healing, for their families and for the whole community.
Mgr. Scicluna confirmed to Reuters last week that “Pope Francis will not show leniency towards pedophile priests because truth and justice are more important than protecting the Church.”
As newly appointed bishop, we encourage you to act upon the words of your pope and release your documents on all abuse cases in your diocese.
The documents relating to the residential school in Chesterfield Inlet have long been claimed by survivors and the by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.
They even had to take the issue to court and the judge of the Superior Court of Ontario ruled in their favor in 2013.
Why so much mystery about what happened to Brother Parent? Many who were at the school in Chesterfield but also later in Churchill know what he did.
You have many documents within the personnel file of Mr Dejaeger. You know the case well.
As the delegation superior, you had an extensive meeting on the subject in October 2001, in Mexico, with the provincial from Belgium, Mark Kemseke, and the local provincial of the Sanctuary of Lourdes in France.
Mr Dejaeger, previously working in the sanctuary, had just been sent away back to Belgium, because some person had given the superior a copy of the Red Notice of Interpol, which stated that the police in Canada had an arrest warrant out for him. Please release those files so that justice can be obtained for all the victims.
You used to speak freely about Mr. Rivoire. He was your idol when you just arrived in Canada. His departure in 1992-1993 was sudden and not commented on in your many magazines and newsletters.
Despite the many questions of Marius Tungilik, you and Mgr. Rouleau were unable to tell him where Rivoire was.
But you knew. He was on the “personnel lists” of your diocese years after he left the country and even in your 2011 online Oblate Directory.
Well, Marius did not make it. The absence of the truth about Parent and Rivoire haunted him all his life and caused a lot of pain to him and his whole family and friends.
Please tell the truth. It will set you free.
Tanya Tungilik
Theresie Tungilik
Jim MacDonald
Lieve Halsberghe
 |
| ullumi ullumi |
vrijdag, januari 24, 2014
knijnepootjes
" Hoera !" riep de Zwitserse garde
Met de Kurassiers van de driekleur-cocarde
" Hoera ! " riepen Landsknechten, Tempelieren,
En de Johanniters met helmvizieren,
En al die soldaten van veertig gevechten :
" Nikasius, Broedertje, jij bent de echte !
En al die kluizenaars en begijnen
"Begrijpen geen snars van de jacht op konijnen
donderdag, januari 23, 2014
Chigaco "Why wasn't the church looking out for us? We were children, for God's sake.""The issue is not when the abuse happened; the issue is what they did once it was reported."
Documents show Archdiocese of Chicago leaders hid sexual abuse by Catholic priests
CHICAGO (IL)Plain Dealer
By Associated Press
January 22, 2014
the documents via BishopAccountability.org
the documents via Jeff Anderson & Associates
It is the brave victims who are to be commended for their courage and determination to help expose this ugly truth within the Chicago Archdiocese.
...
And the tragic part is that the sex abuse and cover up within the church hierarchy throughout the world is still going on to this day.
...
And the tragic part is that the sex abuse and cover up within the church hierarchy throughout the world is still going on to this day.
...
Silence is not an option anymore, it only hurts and by speaking up there is a chance for healing, exposing the truth, and therefore protecting others.
Judy Jones, SNAP Midwest Associate Director, 636-433-2511, SNAPJudy@gmail.com
"SNAP" the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests,
Judy Jones, SNAP Midwest Associate Director, 636-433-2511, SNAPJudy@gmail.com
"SNAP" the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests,
CHICAGO -- Top leaders at the Archdiocese of Chicago helped hide the sexual abuse of children as they struggled to contain a growing crisis, according to thousands of pages of internal documents that raise new questions about how Cardinal Francis George handled the allegations even after the church adopted reforms.
The documents, released through settlements between attorneys for the archdiocese and victims, describe how priests for decades were moved from parish to parish while the archdiocese hid the clerics' histories from the public, often with the approval of the late Cardinals John Cody and Joseph Bernardin.
Although the abuse documented in the files occurred before George became archbishop in 1997, many victims did not come forward until after he was appointed and after U.S. bishops pledged in 2002 to keep all accused priests out of ministry.
George delayed removing the Rev. Joseph R. Bennett, despite learning that the priest had been accused of sexually abusing girls and boys decades earlier. Even the board the cardinal appointed to help him evaluate abuse claims advised George that Bennett should be removed.
"I realize this creates a rather awkward situation, but I believe I need to reflect on this matter further," George wrote in a Nov. 7, 2005, letter to an archdiocese child protection official. Also against the advice of his board, George had Bennett monitored by another priest who was a friend and who vacationed with Bennett.
Allegations against Bennett continued well after 2002. He has denied any wrongdoing in his communications with the archdiocese, but was forced out of ministry on Feb. 3, 2006, according to the newly public documents.
He also has apologized for how he handled allegations against former priest Daniel McCormack, who pleaded guilty in 2007 to abusing five children and whose case prompted an internal investigation of how the archdiocese responds to abuse claims.
"The issue is not when the abuse happened; the issue is what they did once it was reported," said Chicago attorney Marc Pearlman, who has represented about 200 victims of clergy abuse in the Chicago area.
While disturbing stories of clergy sexual abuse have wrenched the Roman Catholic Church across the globe, the newly released documents offer the broadest look yet into how one of its largest and most prominent American dioceses responded to the scandal, even years after the abuse occurred.
The documents, posted online Tuesday by victims' attorneys, cover only 30 of the at least 65 clergy for whom the archdiocese says it has substantiated claims of child abuse. Vatican documents related to the 30 cases were not included, under the negotiated terms of the disclosure. Victims' attorneys say they're working to get files on the other 35 priests.
The files are being released as George, a 77-year-old cancer survivor, awaits permission from Pope Francis to retire. Naming a successor for George will be the pope's first major appointment in the U.S. church.
In a letter distributed to parishes last week, George apologized for the abuse, and said the disclosures are an attempt to help victims heal.
The more than 6,000 pages include internal communications between church officials, disturbing testimony about specific abuses, meeting schedules where allegations were discussed and letters from anguished parishioners. The names of victims and details considered private under mental health laws were redacted.
When a young woman reported in 1970 that she'd been abused as a teen, for example, Cody assured the priest that the "whole matter has been forgotten" because "no good can come of trying to prove or disprove the allegations."
Accused priests often were quietly sent away for a time for treatment or training programs. When they returned, officials often assigned them to new parishes and asked other priests to monitor them around children.
After a 13-year-old boy reported in 1979 that a priest raped him and later threatened him at gunpoint to keep quiet, the Archdiocese of Chicago assured the boy's parents that although the cleric avoided prosecution, he would receive treatment and have no further contact with minors.
But the Rev. William Cloutier, who already had been accused of molesting other children, was returned to ministry a year later and accused of more abuse before he resigned in 1993, two years after the boy's parents filed a lawsuit. Officials took no action against Cloutier over his earliest transgressions because he "sounded repentant," according to internal archdiocese documents released Tuesday that show how the archdiocese tried to contain a mounting scandal over child sexual abuse.
In one 1989 letter to Bernardin, the vicar for priests worries about parishioners discovering the record of the Rev. Vincent E. McCaffrey, who was moved four times because of abuse allegations.
"Unfortunately, one of the key parishioners ... received an anonymous phone call which made reference by name to Vince and alleged misconduct on his part with young boys," wrote the Rev. Raymond Goedert. "We all agreed that the best thing would be for Vince to move. We don't know if the anonymous caller will strike again."
The archdiocese released a statement Tuesday saying it knows it "made some decisions decades ago that are now difficult to justify" and that society has evolved in how it deals with abuse.
"The Church and its leaders have acknowledged repeatedly that they wished they had done more and done it sooner, but now are working hard to regain trust, to reach out to victims and their families, and to make certain that all children and youth are protected," the statement read.
For many victims, the abuse left a lifetime of emotional scars.
"Where was the church for the victims of this sick, demented, twisted pedophile?" one man wrote in a 2002 letter to George about abuse at the hands of the Rev. Norbert Maday, who was imprisoned in Wisconsin after a 1994 conviction for molesting two boys. "Why wasn't the church looking out for us? We were children, for God's sake."
Rachel Zoll and Tammy Webber, Associated Press. Zoll reported from
New York. Associated Press reporters Jason Keyser, Don Babwin and
Michael Tarm contributed from Chicago.
dinsdag, januari 21, 2014
Church officials welcome plan to reopen Irish Vatican Embassy
Senior Vatican figure says move marks ‘end of painful period in Irish-Holy See relations
Paddy Agnew21-1-2014
Irish Times
Closed in November 2011, allegedly as a cost-cutting measure, the reopening of the Embassy was announced today by Tánaiste and Foreign Affairs Minister Eamon Gilmore as part of an expansion of Ireland’s diplomatic network which will see Embassies opening in Thailand, Indonesia, Croatia, Kenya and the Holy See.
At the time of the 2011 closure, many commentators argued it marked an unprecedentedly low ebb in Ireland-Vatican relations. Just three months earlier in a speech in the Dáil, Taoiseach Enda Kenny had criticised the Vatican’s handling of the Irish church’s sex abuse crisis, saying: “Far from listening to evidence of humiliation and betrayal with St Benedict’s ‘ear of the heart’... the Vatican’s reaction was to parse and analyse it with the gimlet eye of a canon lawyer.”
The announcement that the Government intends to reopen the Irish Embassy to the Holy See in Rome has been greeted with immediate satisfaction by Vatican officials.
One senior Vatican figure said the reopening will mark “the end of a painful period” in Ireland’s relations with the Holy See.
[...]
Foreign Affairs also claims the new Vatican Embassy will be a “modest”, one-person operation, in keeping with the new wind of sobriety and parsimony blowing through the Vatican under Pope Francis.
In diplomatic circles, it has long been suggested that the Holy See is a very efficient “listening post”, given the Catholic Church’s unparalleled, worldwide intelligence network of priest and nuns.
Senior diplomats today suggested, however, that this is not the reason why Ireland has chosen to reopen its Embassy. Rather they argue that in the context of a pontificate which puts huge emphasis on poverty, on human rights issues and on developing world matters, it makes sense for Ireland to have a permanent, residential presence in Rome.
Meanwhile, Archbishop of Dublin Diarmuid Martin said reopening the Holy See Embassy on a smaller scale was a very constructive exercise and would enhance relations with the Vatican.
The senior cleric acknowledged that the Government remained committed to reopening the mission when the economic situation allowed.
Archbishop Martin also said that Pope Francis has dedicated himself to being a strong voice for fighting poverty and the Vatican remains an important place of interchange on questions of global development.
Cardinal Seán Brady, the primate of All Ireland, said diplomatic relations between Ireland and the Vatican remained productive even when the Embassy was closed.
“Based on our shared commitment to justice, peace, eradication of poverty, international development, and the protection of the environment, I now look forward to ongoing and fruitful co-operation between Ireland and the Holy See for the common good,” he said. |
| bron Wiki |
this day possible.”
En als ze nou tóch 's die ene vingerhoed hadden verpatst ?
Dan had Higgins mischien wel 'n dag of wat aan z'n keybord kunnen zitten, of een stel nikkertjes een dag aan een boterham met kaas ipv het zilverpapier
 |
bron |
 |
| st nicolas permettez-moi |
Abonneren op:
Posts (Atom)
