Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
THE LEAK OF a private letter from rebellious cardinals to Pope Francis has revived a cloak-and-dagger atmosphere at the Vatican, with the spectre of “Vatileaks” and a butler’s betrayal rearing its ugly head.
The letter, delivered by Australian Cardinal George Pell, was allegedly signed by 13 conservative cardinals who accused the pontiff of favouring liberals in a battle over the Church’s approach to gays and to divorced believers.
It was published Monday by Vatican expert Sandro Magister, who is known for his criticisms of Francis’s papacy and who was expelled from the press room in June for breaking an embargo.
In the missive, sent to the pontiff on 5 October, the cardinals described procedures for the three-week global synod on the family as “designed to facilitate predetermined results” on important disputed questions.
“This is a new ‘Vatileaks’. A private letter belonging to the pope. How is it possible that it was published?” asked German cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Muller, calling for those responsible for giving it to Magister to be found.
In 2012, Pope Benedict XVI’s butler engineered a series of leaks that embarrassed the Vatican, revealing as they did fierce infighting in the highest echelons of the Church and allegations of serious fraud in the running of the city.
The mystery surrounding the latest leak deepened after four of the cardinals said to have signed the letter denied having done so. Pell admitted he had signed but said there were mistakes in the version published by Magister and that the list of signatures was incorrect.
American Cardinal Donald Wuerl, a member of the synod’s governing council, told The Tablet he had not seen any evidence of manipulation, adding: “I’ve been at synods since 1990 and this is the most open synod I’ve ever been at.”
But others fear the Machivellian overtones of the council could signify a return of “Vatileaks”, which was pinned on the butler, but which religious watchers at the time said was likely fruit of a wider conspiracy.
Not a chance. Im not paying for youtube. No way
Full live UFC fights? I’d consider it.
Full live TV? Maybe
Music videos? Nope
Stupid nonsensical videos? Not a notion.
If they charge to watch sports games at a better rate than Sky then sign me up.
+1
Does this mean we’ll have to pay to see fail compilations and cats falling off household furniture?
They will never charge for amateur video’s, like cats…etc., this is adding to what’s already there. Adding a Netflix type element to it and attracting more live events to set up a stream there.
It’s definitely a good move for them IMO.
Am I bothered, not really. Money will be a thing of the past next year. Starting to hoard cheese and beans.
What kind of cheese
Bit of calvita and sheeps cheese. Will stick it up on ewe tube
I heard the markets for calvita can be quite volatile, best to stick with cheddar I reckon
Toe jam could have value someday
Well I have no intention of learning how to play the piano or speak Swahili, just like watching funny stuff like dogs having nightmares, so continue as you are thank you
Its not RIP Youtube, its the beginning. It’s RIP sky and its likes. People will cop on soon that this is the way thats better for watching what you want to watch when you like. Plus interactivity with other viewers. What makes the journal better than other news sites in Ireland? Better reader/commenter interactivity.
Your dead right, sky and other services are on the way out.
dead right about the commentary on here, you can learn a lot from people on all sorts of topics and you get some craic out of some comments aswell
Sky and the like will never die out, only it’s customers. Just like RTE analogue, it will have to be ripped from people’s cold dead hands
I think the only thing Sky has is its sports division which is without questions miles ahead of anything else, hard to envisage as successful a model using and online platform exclusively
Anybody else miss when Andy Gray used to stare down the camera at you and tell you how easy that chance was, and how he just couldn’t believe that yer man had missed it, and Geoff would just be silent and look enthralled for added effect.. nah me neither
Sick to death of that Lucozade ad so maybe I will pay after all
Google… Adblock Plus & for advanced ways of blocking elements use Element Hiding Helper for Adblock Plus.
Totally agree with you. I’ve got Adblock for GoogleChrome and it works brilliantly. For anyone interested, I think there’s something similar for Firefox as well
But then the guilt of not observing those paid for advertisements to allow free access to entertainment, its unbearable….
That’s the end of you tube so!
Hardly the end, it just sounds like there will be commercial channels available should you wish to subscribe to them.
use add blocker
Why are people so offended by the idea of creative people getting paid for their work?
Creative people? Who? The accountants!
I’m sick of seeing Beyonce ads on my favourite trance channel lol
Damn.. unavailable here. .. was really getting all worked up about sesame Street
R.i.p. youtube you were good whole it lasted
12 quid a year for unlimited Sesame Street. Signed up, kids love it and have the box set on constant loop so it will be nice to see other episodes
Do away with the ads, and guarantee videos will stream perfectly and then I wouldn’t mind paying a nominal fee.
R.I.P Youtube
Youtube has always been far more than “away to showcase amateur homemade videos”, and this isn’t a dig at the writer, as a lot of people don’t know this! Everybody hears of the viral content from YouTube, but there are vloggers (video bloggers) and people, for which YouTube is a job for them. I think it’s kinda funny that a lot of people only see YouTube as a source of viral videos and music but most of its success is credited to the likes of Jenna marbles, Smosh, Philip DeFranco, Shaycarl and Charlieissocoollike there are so many that have put work into YouTube to make it what it is today! It really is becoming a whole new form of entertainment and I welcome the new venture by YouTube as long as they don’t start charging for just watching videos! I would love to see The Journal do an article on vloggers on YouTube because it is a relatively secret part of YouTube!
Que the thumbs downs!
To help creativity my arse. The truly creative stuff is actually over on Vimeo. There’s some amazing stuff on that that’s light years ahead of what you find on YouTube
.. not sure if anyone took the time to click the link, judging by the existing comments, to see that the channels are unavailable to people living in Ireland. Doesn’t concern me, so I’m not even bothered about it. More power to them if they think it’ll bring in some revenue.
Bye Youtube – Hello Daily Motion.
OI YOUTUBE….Careful now!!!!! ;)
The day YouTube died
BT sports channel on YouTube soon I wonder? They have rights to a heap of live sports from next season. 1st premiership match of 2013/2014 too.
Why don’t they just bill the ISP & “fund creativity” from that, plus the advertising revenue they generate? Be a better business strategy IMHO. We’re already paying the ISP to view anything, they’re already benefitting from royalties of “virals”. Let them businesses do business with each other!
Look up net neutrality. What you suggest would destroy the Internet as we know it.
I did and, point taken. Thank you. Guess I’ll just boycott like everyone else then.
Prob better off considering the amount of ,personal info the web wants to amalgamate about every single being.
Won”t miss Youtube much either tbh. Off to the hills with me then :)
Actually, my original point was fairer – let Youtube & the multitude of ISPs (who all benefit from our custom) battle it out & bargain over royalties/who-gets-the-money.
I’m a consumer who’s being actively targeted with advertising from which they derive revenue. THEY are making it a consumer issue, by setting charges, when it’s NOT – if they were losing money off every search I, or anyone else, ever made, they’d be gone long go! This question is really about who profits in monetary terms.
Advertising creates profits, so make advertisers pay. Us plebs already pay for the stuff advertised, and we also already pay for the pleasure of viewing those nasty pop-up ads, so we are properly programmed to buy the right product.
Clearly I have not even packed, let alone left, for the hills.
You are paying your ISP for the service and infrastructure not for the content. It’s up to the content providers to decide what they want to charge and how they do that – whether by subscriptions, advertising or a bit of both.
I don’t think they’re planning on charging for the 99% of crap that people upload to Youtube, or music videos and the like. They’re allowing TV producers to build their own pay for channels that you can subscribe to directly. I think it’s about time this started happening.
If I can pay for the exact channels I want, and only those channels instead of the 100 or so crap channels of 8 hour repeats I’ll take it. It’ll be cheaper and there will always be something on I want to watch when I want to watch it!
Watch yer strones
Will we have to pay for this guy and sh1te in the bucket?
I wanna fight Davey furst
Nice knowing you YouTube.
No adverts and regular content updates????
I’d happily pay for subscriptions to channels like Nat Geo at those prices! bye bye traditional TV!! Hello targeted content!
This is an absolute winner if they do it right.
I hope the annoying ads wont pop up if you pay!
Great way to open up for something new,, youtube will die like so many other pages before it has done who “tried to be smart” and started taking money for “there” serviceses.
So when do we start paying for the Journal? Actually, we should be charged for every app we use on our phone. For every time we access our phone perhaps. What about laptops? Why should they be exempt? What about paying for FB and Twitter? What about our photographs and comments? Why should they be free!
If you pay for Netflix…etc. why not this?
have your say