This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

President Robinson "cheap"

I am not sure that the date of 10 May 1997 is correct. It seems that the date 8 MArch 1997 is more accurate. I am not sure either that any point can be made from the manner in which the Robinson's visit was oficially gazetted. The attached link gives the official announcement:

http://212.77.1.245/news_services/bulletin/news/310.php?index=310&po_date=08.03.1997&lang=en

Quite clearly, this is not a private visit nor a State visit. In diplomatic terms it was an official visit. Also, not much should be read into anything coming from the Catholic Communications Office in Dublin which is a very unreliable source especially for details of fine protocol.—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

It was a private visit. While in Rome the President asked for an audience and the Pope granted one. There was nothing official about it, as both the Vatican and the Áras made clear. Unfortunately given it was 1997 the details were not placed on the net, as they would be today. When it comes to heads of state, even private events are ritualised so people commonly presume that if there was some ritual then it must have been official or state. In reality, even the lunch the President of Ireland takes is heavily ritualised, as is practically everything the Pope does. Even his "private" Masses are ceremonial. FearÉIREANN

\^{^(caint) 18:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)}[reply]

I take your point about ritual above but I am not positing the non sequitur.

The visit is mentioned on the official wesite of the vatican for 1997. www.vatican.va under "Bollitino".

Concerning the status of the visit, I am sure that the protocol offices of both governments will easily clarify its status. In the event, the status of the visit is irrelevant to the manner in which persons involved in it behave. If I am not mistaken, there is a section in Mrs. Robinson's biography in which she comments on the 1997 visit and explains her motives. I shall search this out and post it accordingly.

I have restored a few previous edits including one in the introduction which stated that Fr. O'Hanlon's philosophical positions "match" those of Roger Scruten and A. MacIntyre. I would think that that would not be altogether true.

While I share "Eireannach's" respect for the clergy and hierarchy and can understand it traditionalist roots, at the same time, I see no reason to cosset either from due criticism, especially when they engage the public on subjects they know little or nothing about.

By definition every Mass is "ritual" and "ceremonial".

It is odd that any ritual should attend the dining habits of the head of state of republic such as Ireland. I cannot imagine that it would in any way resemble the protocol of the Queen's household or the even more ritualized dining habits of the Court of France, or even those of Charles I etc.. But then, being merely plebian, I have never had the honour of being admitted to seeing the Irish head of State remplissant sa bouche.

Comments on "the then President of Ireland" make no sense in an opening paragraph. We do not know what you are referring to or when the "then" was. I think you have to use an indifinite article!

The Queen's Visit to Pope John Paul II, October 2000

I do not wish to be tedious about it, but the The Queen's visit of the 17 October 2000 was a state visit, as is evident from the exchange of addresses and gifts. The details are available from the official gazette of the event:

http://212.77.1.245/news_services/bulletin/news/7787.php?index=7787&po_date=17.10.2000&lang=en

I am going to have to change the caption on The Queen's picture. As you will see from the official announcement she is referred to as "La Regina Elizabetha II d'Inghilterra". This is strictly accurate. There have not been two Elizabeths since the Act of Union of 1800.

Wrong. The Queen paid a state visit to the Italian Republic. While there she had a private audience with the Pope. The caption is correct. And please sign your comments. FearÉIREANN

\^{^(caint) 21:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)}[reply]

You might like to take a look at this wikipedia link for a complete list of The Queen's state visits

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_state_visits_made_by_Queen_Elizabeth_II#2000s

The wikipedia article is incorrect. The 2000 visit was an official visit. See telegraph article fro 18 October 2000. Sorry about that.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2000/10/19/18/wpop18.xml

No problem. That list, like O'Hanlon, is mixing up state, official and private visits. The BBC and Buckingham Palace at the time both made it explicitly clear that it was not a state visit. Nor could it be. If she had made a state visit extreme protestant elements would have gone beserck. They are annoyed enough at private visits. Ian Paisley and co would accuse her of breaking her coronation oath if she paid a state visit to the Vatican. If it was a state visit,

she would have been accompanied to it by a government minister (they always go with heads of state on state visits). She wasn't.
She would have invited the pope as a head of state to pay a state visit to the UK in return. That is standard. She didn't.
The Papal Court follows strict rituals on state visits, from who mets one when one arrives, to the formal presentation, to the papal clothes worn on the day. Popes never ever wear their normal white cassock when meeting a head of state during a state visit. They wear a mozzetta and, if it is a Catholic head of state, their stole. That is automatic.

With no minister, no invitation, no formal ritual of the sort used in state visits, no papal mozzetta, it was not, and could not be, a state visit. But then BP had told angry Protestant leaders that at the time. Unfortunately WP lists are not very reliable. FearÉIREANN\^{^(caint) 21:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)}[reply]

I am not sure about the minister bit. The Telegraph article says taht Robin Cook, the Foreign Minister was present and introduced to the late Pontiff. ALso, in the latter years of the last pontificate, much of the usual procedure had to be dispensed with because of the Pope's failing health. So, not much store should be put on whether he had or had not a mozetta.

Where is it gone to?

Cook "attended" the Queen during her state visit to Italy. He may have accompanied her to the Vatican as a guest, but he didn't "attend" her in the constitutional sense there. As to the mozzetta, that was not, and could not, be dispensed with. It is an automatic part of Vatican ritual. A pope meeting a head of state during a state visit without a mozzetta on would be the equivalent of he saying Mass without vestments or in his slippers or appearing in public with a shirt and tie on. It is unthinkable in Vatican protocol. Far from being a problem, it was perfect in his illhealth because it would keep him warm. In fact he caused some surprise in Summer 2004 by wearing a winter mozetta (without the ermine trimmings which Ben has reinstated). While everyone else melted in the heat, he was shivering and wrapped in a heavy mozzetta. By that stage, however, his memory was very poor, a fact kept quiet by the Vatican. It was only after his death that it was revealed that when he met the President of Ireland he couldn't remember where the St. John Lateran was!!! He couldn't remember his own encyclicals and had to ask an aide who the gentleman he had been talking to was. (It was the Archbishop of Canterbury!!!) FearÉIREANN

\^{^(caint) 21:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)}[reply]

I thought we just said that it was not a state visit. It was the wikipedia list that said it was. Cook was present. I do not think that those visiting the Vatican bring "guests".

I doubt very nuch that the Vatican would be so dogmatic abot the mozzetta. Taking the position you adopt would back it into an unnecessary corner. The category of indespensible is rarely used in Vatican protocol.

Do you have a date for the wearing of a winter mozetta in summer? Or can you recall the event at which it was worn?

I seem to recall that there were three types of mozetta: the winter one which has an ermine trim (recently resurrected not having been used since Paul VI), the summer mozetta which is of a light material (silk, I think) and the white mozetta which was used during Eastertide but had not been seen since John XXIII. What you mention above.

As to "controversial" I think that it is invalid logic to say that because someone is involved in a controversy that he is "controversial". Someone can start or be involved in a controversy without necessarily being controversial. By definition, in a controversy it is the opinions exchanged which are "controversial". If I recall correctly, saying that someone involved in a controversy is controversial would fit into the "if I drive fat sheep, I am fat" category of fallacy. Someone who starts or participates in a controversy is surely a "controvertialist"?

I cannot recollect a President of Ireland revealing the content of conversation with a head of state. If you have audience of The Queen, good manners dictate that you do not speak publicly of the contents of the conversation during the audience. The same, I believe, is true of other heads of state. If something has to be said, then press releases are issued. Re what you say about the Lateran etc. could Ireland possibly have had an ill mannered head of state who does not know how to conduct him/her self?

Incorrect. The information on JP's mental issues was revealed in a Catholic newspaper after JP's death. The information on his rambling and inability to recognise the name of his own encyclicals was published in a book about the pope. FearÉIREANN

\^{^(caint) 13:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)}[reply]

- Clearly what yuo is base on an "unconfirmed" newspaper report. It could not have come from the President, as I pointed out and no official press release exists about it. Could we have a reference to the newspaper and the book you mention? In their absence this is unvrifiable!

Wrong yet again. It came from her. She said it. It quoted her in an interview with her. It is normal after a prominent figure dies for those who met them in their lifetime to talk about it. She did to a Catholic newspaper and confirmed what was privately known, that John Paul II was confused and forgetful in the extreme in his last years. What actually happened was simple. She new in his younger days he was a visitor regularly to the Irish college. She mentioned that. He was confused and asked an aide where was the Irish college? McAleese told him that it was near the Basilica of St. John lateran. He then inquired of the aide "Where is that?" FearÉIREANN

\^{^(caint) 16:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)}[reply]

- - I do not think that the term "unconfirmed" is wrong here. Even if we allow that the President of Ireland makes it - and as I say, I think she would be too educated to make such a gaffe - the fact remains that reports about the Pope's condition are "unconfirmed" until an OFFICIAL statement is made through the Vatican Press and Information Office. Any journalist worth his salt will tell you that.

- +But can we have the results of your research. We have nothing so far. Where did she say it and when? And, as I say, it is very doubtful that one head of state would make comments such as this about another. It simply is not international protocol and I am sure someone in Dublin is paid to tell the President what to say - if that were needed. She is after all very well educated and would know how to conduct herself. J. Chiraq is not on record for such comments, neithe if the The Queen, the King of Spain, the President of Italy -who probably knew him better than most heads of state etc.

- - I can quite easily understand anyone not knowing where the Irish College is located in Rome. In global terms it is not a very significant institution. Even wikipedia does not have an article on it.

Pressure from the Catholic Church

I for one do not regard it as a good thing that the Catholic Church -or any other body for that matter - should exert "pressure" on any person if it cannot PERSUADE that person to change his/her mind on a given subject by rational discourse.

reversion

re your edits, I don't doubt your sincerity, but they are factually inaccurate in a host of ways.

Anyone who causes a controversy is by definition controversial. O'Hanlon causes a controversy. Ipso facto, he is controversial. It is a statement of fact, not opinion.

- - If I recall correctly, this is an AAA type syllogism. Another example would be: All men are mice. Mick is a man, Therefore, Mick is a mouse. Hopefully, you will see my point about your statement above.

The description of the priests he criticised as being left wing is highly questionable. By his standards perhaps they are left wing. By the normal definition of the term they were not. Many of their views would put them right of centre.

- - Actually, I did not say "left wing". I said "left of centre" which is an all together different thing. I have qualified the statement by saying "theologically". I think, at least some of the people concerned, would be quite happy withn this and regard it as an accurate description of their theological positions on a range of issues.

Calling a pianist "accomplished" is POV. How accomplished any instrument player is is a matter of personal opinion. So we can't use that.

- - And a lot of personal opinions add up to a general estimation or acceptance. Take the undisputed case of Arthur Rubenstein. In any event, it does not hurt to be generous in one's opinions. Indeed, the opposite might indicate a mean mind.

I couldn't simply edit your edits because this page has been the target of a vandal who has been blanking parts of the text. Unfortunately you didn't notice so you were editing vandalised text. To undo the vandalism I had to go back to the last pre-vandalised version. The previous edit before that lacked your changes, the problems over which are mentioned above, so I went back to that.

- - Something happened while I was writing a series of notes and when I went back, the whole thing had disappeared.

FearÉIREANN\^{^(caint) 21:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)}[reply]

Images

I am removing most of the "fair-use" images from this page. While a fair-use claim could be made for photographs of the specific Papal visit O'Hanlon complained about (e.g. Queen Elizabeth), generic pictures of the person in question (e.g. Mary Robinson) are definitely not fair use in this article. User:Angr 15:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. The official portrait of Mary Robinson was issued by the office of President of Ireland for use by the media, print, internet and broadcast. As it is being used exactly for that reason (i.e., to illustrate her — and her general style of clothing, something of direct relevance given that she kept to a standard type of clothing &mdash) and the article is in large parts concerned with her, the images qualifies fully under fair use law. So do does the official image issued to the media by the President's office of Patrick Hillery, which again was issued to all medias and again contextualises what he looked like and showed him in the type of lounge suit he wore when meeting the pope). All such official images are issued on that basis, while the image of President de Valera meeting Pope John XXIII is a standard Vatican image (its photographers take images which are then supplied freely to all sources). As a free use, no limits image issued for usage to the media it too qualifies under fair use. The Vatican issues such images precisely for that reason. It is not a case of using someone else's image by claiming a legal right in specific exceptions. All these images (the conditions of Queen Paola's image aren't known but probably as an official portait follow the same normal rules as those issued for Irish presidents.) are specifically issued to the media by press offices for usage in revelant contexts, and all the images are relevant: two official portraits presidents who feature prominently in the article, and two shots of Vatican protocol on the issue of the article in action. FearÉIREANN

\^{^(caint) 01:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)}[reply]

Opener

I changed the opening bit: the referenced 'Alistair MacIntyre' is non-existent, Alasdair MacIntyre was the man surely intended as he is indeed a critic of philosophical liberalism/modernism. Bren H. 08:20, 31 July 2006 (CST)

Incredibly Poor Article

This is such a bizarre piece I hardly know where to start. Most of the references on the article appear to be other topics.

Early life - grand.

"Denouncing another priest as a "charlatan" and "fraud" - precisely one reference to it, no longer working. One priest slagging off another is hardly worthy of a Wikipedia article.

President Robinson "cheap" - A huge swathe of text devoted to one Irish Times article, most of it absolutely nothing to do with O'Hanlon. A reference to a mention of his article in a book hardly denotes "controversy". At the very least, this section should be edited down to the first paragraph.

"Bishops disown comments" - again, another huge tit-for-tat discussion about the article. Could again be summarised in a sentence.

"Funder of Dana Rosemary Scallon" - Priest supports Dana Rosemary Scallon. This is not notable.

"Accuses Catholic priests of defeatism" - Again, an article in the Irish Catholic is hardly worthy of this much comments (says "made the headlines", but there's a single broken reference to the Irish Independent).

"Sources" - incredibly poor just to list a bunch of sources without proper referencing (dates, pages, inline refs, etc.)

This needs a serious amount of work.

P. Paul Moloney (talk) 19:46, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on David O'Hanlon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041001083540/http://www.vatican.va:80/ to http://www.vatican.va

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:04, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on David O'Hanlon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:47, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]