An IRA terrorist goes into the confessional and says, “Bless me, Father, for I have sinned. I’ve just blown up twelve miles of English railroad!”
The priest says, “All right, my son. For penance, do the Stations.”
Ok, I know you all hate the Church, and facts and reason have no place in the Pit, but this thread is unusually unfair.
The Church moved him because the English government asked them to.
There was little proof that he was involved in the bombing, certainly not enough for even close to a criminal conviction, so the government made a very discreet request that they at least move the priest out of the area to somewhere where, if he was involved, he could do no more harm.
The Church had no reason to defrock him as they could prove nothing, and the English had no intention to press charges.
RCC made the best out of an awkward situation.
OK, apparently I read some stuff that applied to the local constabulary, and thought it was referring to the RCC. My bad, and my apologies.
But there still remains the fact that Cardinal Conway moved this priest, who “detectives in 1972 had concluded was an IRA leader and had been involved in the bombing.” across a national boundary, at the prompting of an official of a government of this world. While we don’t know whether Conway was aware of this, the RCC doesn’t just move priests around because a government official says so. They don’t regard themselves as responsible to government officials. It’s possible that Whitelaw sold Conway a really convincing but basically dishonest story of why Chesney had to be moved, but that’s not really the way to bet, is it?
It wasn’t civil war. The arrest of a priest might have had several serious repercussions that would have escalated things. For example, it might have radicalised more people in the Republic to throw their lot in with the IRA, or it could have sparked greater ire amongst Unionists, thus leading to more bloodshed, pogroms etc. Hindsight is 20/20 but 1972 had been the bloodiest year of the Troubles so far and from the contemporary viewpoint there were several plausible ways that the arrest of Chesney would have led directly to even more violence and potentially a situation that the authorities couldn’t control.
That’s a hateful, bigoted, intolerant comment…but motherfucking funny.
Now, I gotta go to confession.
The use of the Present Progressive for an action 40 years ago does seem a bit ungrammatical.
The present tense will continue to apply until they have come clean about their past sins. As long as you’re still covering up an action, you’re still participating in it.
In this particular case, maybe there’s nobody left alive who knows for sure why the cardinal moved Fr. Bomber beyond the reach of the detectives’ questioning. But it’s not like the RCC appears to have taken the initiative to find out everything they could, and make it all public.
There ain’t no covering, the facts are clear.
You know the answers, they are clear, the governement asked the move not the Cardinal, so your phrase “moved Fr. Bomber beyond the reach of the detectives’ questioning” is factually incorrect.
If I ask you to bring me a glass of tea, and you do so, then “you brought me a glass of tea” is factually incorrect?
Ho-kay.
No, but that’s not what you’re saying.
You’re saying “Ají de Gallina, for reasons never completely clarified, increased the norm of a cup of tea’s position vector (in relation to a table) bringing it closer to a carbon-based life-form. He hasn’t come clean, after all these years, why he did it”.
I am content to let you argue with yourself about what I said. When you come to a conclusion about which of your personalities won, drop me a note.
FWIW it seems that at least four other priests were involved in Republican terrorism or attempts at it at least.
Thanks, however we all agree you have no clue.
Saying “moved beyond the reach” has the clear connontation of “against the will”, I’ll let you fight denotation till the cow comes home.