Wednesday, 19 September 2018



That point of view has certainly been expressed by several people.

A friend of Father Drury's wrote the following to me in an email:

"Bishop Pat, 

Fr Ronan Drury was a lifelong family friend, neighbour and a fairly constant presence in my life. My late mother would routinely dictate letters for me to write to Fr Ronan in Maynooth. 

He was the first positive religious role model in my life, and it is he whom I often thank for the gift of faith. He certainly encouraged that gift. 

 I have been completely and utterly shaken by what you have published on your blog in recent days. As far back as I can remember Ronan was a regular visitor to my family home and the home of my grandparents. He famously said Midnight mass on Christmas Eve for almost 70 years in his home parish, Mullagh County Cavan. He returned often to say funeral and wedding masses. Never in my life did I ever hear such allegations or innuendo about Fr Drury. He remains in the hearts and minds of his neighbors and friends as a kindhearted and genuine priest and man. 

I grew up believing and still believe, that Ronan Drury was a gentle, honest and dedicated servant of Christ. I have become seriously and greatly disturbed by your recent utterances. I thank God that Ronan has no immediate family left as I know it would greatly hurt them, as it has hurt me. You have warranted an attack against the most innocent and defenceless in our society, the dead. Is it more than a coincidence that you have decided to publish such allegations almost 12 months after Fr Drury was buried. 

I feel that you have gone too far and have labeled an innocent man as a dangerous predator whose sole focus was to molest and wreak havoc over his students. 

I implore you to publish facts, evidence and proof of Fr Drury’s misdemeanors rather than idle gossip and conjecture. 

You ought to be aware that to us Ronan was a friend as well as a much loved and respected priest. 

Yours in Christ."

Father Clat

Dear Pat Buckley.
As someone who knew the late Fr.Ronan Drury as a teacher, mentor and friend for almost forty years I want to refute utterly the cruel and untruthful depiction of his character you have chosen to print on your blog today. His kindness and generosity towards his friends and generations of students was never tainted by any ‘predatory’ motivation or behavior. The truth of that can be found in the real love and affection he inspired in so many of his former students over his long lifetime and came from his never failing good humor and his frequent words of encouragement and compassion. He was never afraid to challenge the status quo and was often a lone voice in Irish Catholicism in publishing the views of those who distorted Gospel values within the church – no matter how elevated their status. I suspect this is where the roots of complaint against him really originate among those for whom the Gospel is simply an instrument of judgement and exclusion and whose hate-filled agenda disguised as piety is ever more to the fore today. He never uttered an uncouth or nasty comment about anyone in all the time I spent in his company and is completely undeserving of the assassination of his character by those who never knew him. As someone who claims to have the same mission of truth at heart Pat I hope you will discontinue these hurtful and spurious attacks.
Paul Clayton-Lea

There are various things that emerge:

1.   Father Ronan Drury was loved and respected by many people, clerical and lay and they say he was a wonderful man and did a great deal of good.

2.   It seems pretty clear to me that Ronan was of the “antique disposition” (gay) and that is neither a sin or a crime.

3.   He obviously was a character over many decades in Maynooth and many, to this day, remember him and recall his actions and words.

4.   It seems pretty clear that he liked to touch people in an “affectionate” manner and this is not an issue when and if one has the permission of another to do so.

5.   Some people have said that this touching was of a sexual or sensual nature and they objected to it.

6.   One person talked of Ronan standing behind them during homiletics lecture, pressing himself into them and putting his arms around their chest from behind.  In todays society that would certainly, in the workplace and other places be viewed as invading boundaries and personal space and indeed as sexual harassment.

7.   While some people called him a “predator” can such a termed be used of a serial “toucher” or should that term be reserved to people who go further than touching?

8.   Nobody, to my understanding, has said that Ronan ever engaged in a sexual act with them or anybody else?

9.   Was Ronan’s alleged regular sexualised comments to seminarians appropriate?

This whole issue is probably being seen in the context of recent very promiscuous homosexual activity in Maynooth.
Is Ronan a completely different matter or do people feel that he contributed to the ever worsening situation in Maynooth?

In the end Ronan’s friends and admirers will love him in spite of all.

And anyone who feels that Ronan crossed boundaries with them personally is entitled to object.

Tuesday, 18 September 2018


A Dublin journalist rang the office of the parish secretary of Donaghmede Parish secretary and she confirmed to them that Deacon Byrne was indeed living in a presbytery.

However, she was told not to give any details about Gorgeous to anyone and to refer such inquiries to the parish priest Father Gerard Corcoran.

So why is Gorgeous living in a presbytery? Every other seminarian I know who left the seminary went home to live in the family home until they could get a job and their own home.

Why this special treatment for Gorgeous?

Was this an arrangement made or sanctioned by Archbishop Martin?


Or was it an arranged by Father  Corcoran who is reportedly a long time friend of Gorgeous?

If so did Father Corcoran run it past Archbishop Martin?

And what did Diarmuid say?

Who is paying the bills for Gorgeous' presbytery - the people of Donaghmede or the people of Dublin?

Or has Gorgeous got a patron, clerical or otherwise?

Is Gorgeous' living arrangements part of a secret deal to ordain him when things quieten down?

Is this part of a bigger deal between Gorgeous and Diarmuid- and if so what are the rest of the conditions.

We were given the impression that Gorgeous has left the priesthood path and would find another profession.

This would have required Diarmuid Martin and Gorgeous to petition Rome asking for Gorgeous' to be launched from the order of deacon.

Instead, we find Gorgeous living in a parish property in September 2018.

If Gorgeous is left his private is his own business completely.

However, if the Church is still spending the people's donations on him there are serious questions to be asked and answered.

Maybe they can't just let Gorgeous go as he has the dirt on a lot of clergy and perhaps bishops?

If so, are we dealing with some form of payments and for what?

Very strange indeed.

I shall a very big church rat or two!

British priest, 72, put two policemen in hospital after violently lashing out when he was caught groping women on a train in Italy
By George Martin For Mailonline02:10, 19 Sep 2018

The 72-year-old priest had allegedly 'repeatedly touched' two women in Rome

He was sentenced to two years and eight months house arrest the same day 

A court heard on Monday he had put two Italian police officers in hospital 
Father Peter Slocombe, 72, put two Italian police officers in hospital

A 72-year-old Catholic priest put two Italian policemen in hospital after he was arrested for groping women on a train in Rome on Monday.

Father Peter Slocombe, from Gloucestershire, was convicted yesterday of groping women on a Rome underground train and lashing out at officers trying to arrest him.

As part of his closed-court sentence, Slocombe was placed under house arrest at a Vatican training college in Rome for two years and eight months.

He will also pay each of the officers €5,000.

Slocombe was said to have 'repeatedly touched' two women in their 40s on the train before running off.

After being reported to police by the women and chased by a group of officers, Slocombe then broke one officer's nose and gave both men cuts and bruises.

They called for back-up before bundling the British priest, who was not wearing his robes, into a squad car at Rome's main station.

A police spokesman said: 'This guy was crazy. He was punching and kicking out at the officers.
'He kept saying he was man of the cloth and was innocent but we have witnesses who say he was touching two women on the train and the victims identified him.' 



Hi Bishop Pat

I am one of your blog followers and I pray regularly for you and thank God for your work. I thought that these meeting notes between the Scottish Laity Network and Archbishop Adams may be of interest to you. The good lay faithful and Clergy of the Archdiocese of St Andrews and Edinburgh have no confidence in their Archbishop, Leo Cushley. 

Looks like the Nuncio will do nothing. 

I would be grateful that if you post these on your blog, you do not publish my email address.

God bless you.

Note of Meeting with Papal Nuncio
Apostolic Nunciature
54 Parkside
SW19 5NE
Tuesday 28th August 2018
2.08pm – 4.20pm
Apostolic Nunciature:
Archbishop Edward Joseph Adams, Apostolic Nuncio 
Monsignor Matteo De Mori, ChargĂ© d'affaires
Scottish Laity Network (SLN)
Anne Buhrmann 
Robert Burnett
Dan Cronin
Monica Thompson


Welcome and Introductions
Despite arriving 20 minutes early we were warmly welcomed by Archbishop Edward and Monsignor Matteo.
We thanked the Archbishop for meeting us earlier than planned and set the context of the meeting:
• We are representative members of the recently formed Scottish Laity Network.
• The focus of the meeting was addressing the concerns that we had expressed in the dossier that had previously been sent to Archbishop Edward.
• If in reading and digesting the dossier the Archbishop had anything he wished clarification on we hoped we could address that.
• In our dialogue we hoped to see in what way the Archbishop could support and advise us on how we move forward
• We stated that all our meetings were rooted in prayer and asked if we could begin with a prayer.
Archbishop Edward then said a short prayer and we all said the Our Father.
We informed Archbishop Edward and Monsignor Matteo thatat a recent Open Meeting of the SLN in Edinburgh we had a brief Prayer Service and since then members throughout Scotland had been praying and fasting for us all during the past week. We said we would like us all to say that prayer together.  The Archbishop was very happy with this.  We gave him a copy of the Handout and the amended prayer.
To focus our prayer we placed ourselves in the presence of our Loving and Merciful God and acknowledged:
• The reality of the challenges that the Church, our Church, a Church we love, is being called to address as we, at last, listen to the cries of those who have been abused by those in positions of power in our Church.
• That throughout the world there is a sense that we must bring things into the light and discuss them openly, for in the darkness evil flourishes.
• That we need courage to allow the Spirit to empower us to be an open and transparent community.
We prayed that our meeting would be step towards realising this.
We then prayed together the following prayer:
We ask that the Holy Spirit will be with us:
@May we receive an outpouring of your Spirit 
that we may be filled with the inspiration and power of Jesus.
@May we listen only to the inspiring message of Jesus.
@May the Spirit empower us to walk in the truth of Jesus.
@May we feel the warmth and joy of our loving merciful Father.
@May our hearts and minds be open to the ways the Spirit is calling us to be Church.
@May our dialogue be one of fraternal and sisterly love 
that manifests the love of Jesus.
We ask this in the name of our Risen Lord, Jesus of Nazareth.  Amen.
Ground Rules
We stated that as delegates of the SLN we had an obligation to report to those who entrusted us with the mandate of representing them at this meeting and to do this to the best of our ability we would be taking notes to help us prepare a report for our members.


We gave a brief background to the meeting:
• The meeting was in response to an invitation by the Nuncio to discuss SLN letter of 23 June 2018 to Cardinal Kevin Farrell, Dicastery for Laity, Family and Life regarding concerns about Archbishop Leo Cushley's administration of Archdiocese of St Andrews and Edinburgh. 
• We clarified for the Archbishop that copies of letter had been sent to: 
Prefect, Congregation for Clergy; Prefect, Congregation for Bishops; 
Papal Nuncio, London; Archbishop Scicluna.
• To enable the Archbishop to get a sense of who we were we briefly described the establishment of the SLN twelve months ago and explained that after six months of correspondence the Archbishop had met four SLN representatives but with restricted agenda.  However subsequent to the meeting he had refused further dialogue, hence our letter to the Nuncio.
• In response to our initial request for meeting, Monsignor De Mori had said that the Nuncio could not help, since pastoral matters were for Archbishop Cushley to deal with. However the request for this meeting had been pressed in view of Archbishop Cushley’s refusal for further discussion. The Nuncio was therefore asked for help and direction on how the SLN might proceed further
We reiterated our hopes for the meeting:
• We are keen to learn what influence his Excellency through his office can bring to bear to help remedy our situation. 
• What processes are open to His Excellency?
• Has his Excellency sent the papers on to Rome as we requested? 
• What further processes are open to us? 
The discussion flowed as prompted by the Spirit and as such it is difficult to clearly delineate the exact flow, as issues raised and addressed at one point were returned to at a later stage. We have therefore identified the key areas that emerged at various times in our dialogue and grouped together all comments in that specific area.
We have also identified the response of Archbishop Edwardwhere there was one.  Where he sought to clarify issues with facts we have also identified the facts. 
1. Role of the Nuncio
Archbishop Edward explained his very restricted functions - representative of the Pope, not a super Bishop with authority to intervene.  
It was not his role to make decisions regarding our Archdiocese.
His role is essentially one of listening
I listen and pass on what I hear to those who can make decisions.”
“I seek to be a friend to both Archbishop Cushley and yourselves.
2. Impact of the Cardinal O’Brien Scandal


a) When Archbishop Cushley was sent to our Archdiocese it was to bring healing and unity.  
b) There was an investigation which was reported to the Pope, but the results were kept secret.  Surely this made it more difficult for Archbishop Cushley to fulfil his task to bring healing and unity?
c) We quoted Archbishop Chavez of El Salvador:
In this the Church is categorical: 
It is not possible to arrive at forgiveness and reconciliation 
without passing through the moment of truth and justice.
d) Our Archdiocese desperately needs truth and justice.
Archbishop Edward acknowledged that our Archdiocese needed healing due to the ‘betrayal’ of Cardinal O’Brien.
e) We shared how our Archdiocese was sadly not alone in needing healing and reconciliation and referred to the situation in Archbishop Edward’s home diocese of Philadelphia.
Archbishop Edward said he had known Cardinal McCarrick who had a reputation for ambition and that ambition may be linked to competence.
The Archbishop said how all in the Church are suffering.  The Nunciature had ‘paedophile’ scrawledon the wall and this was obviously upsetting.  Archbishop Edward stated it was also inaccurate since the allegations were not about paedophilia but ephebophilia.
The Archbishop did not like the use of the term ‘cover up’.
f) We stressed the importance of timeous action by the Church.
3. Communication
a) We shared that the feedback from a large number of people who have contacted the Archbishop are feelings of hurt and anger at what is perceived as a patronising response.
Archbishop Edward urged us to seek to try and continue to dialogue with Archbishop Cushley. Whilst acknowledging our efforts in this area he encouraged us to ‘try again’ with a softer approach. 
Monsignor Matteo asked if we knew the parable of the persistent widow.
Archbishop Edward asked if we knew someone who could mediate. Or was there not one person who could speak to the Archbishop, someone non-confrontational? Could we not be magnanimous? 
b) We again went through the steps we had taken to establish dialogue and that Archbishop Cushley had informed us that he considered the dialogue over.  
c) It was due to this lack of communication and the pain that was being caused to the faithful in our Archdiocese that we had sought our meeting.  
d) Archbishop Cushley had inherited a troubled Archdiocese but his leadership had made the situation worse.  
e) People are suffering and we need to be able to give them hope.
f) There was a lack of openness and transparency about the consultation processes regarding both the radical reform of the Archdiocesan Curia and restructuring of our parishes.  It had generated a climate of fear and uncertainty that caused unnecessary pain and anguish amongst the faithful.
Archbishop Edward acknowledged that we were describing ‘grave matters’.
g) We hoped and prayed that Archbishop Edward would give us guidance on how we can move to remedy the situation
Archbishop Edward again encouraged us to seek dialogue with Archbishop Cushley and to seek to ‘disarm him with love’.
h) We highlighted that we were sitting together strategizing how to get our Archbishop to talk to one of his flock!
i) We asked was he not able to use his influence, in the inner forum.
Archbishop Edward said he would do that, and that we had a friend in him and that the Archbishop also had a friend in him. But that it was his responsibility to nurture relationships, to speak only the positive about each party and help them see the good in the other. 
However it was his responsibility to represent the Pope and that the Bishop had all authority in his own diocese.
j) In the light of our own situation, and that of the universalChurch, we said we needed our Bishops to be filled with Apostolic courage to bring things out into the open, for the Gospel teaches us of the dangers of things that are done in the dark, where evil can flourish.
4. Pastoral Impact
a) When we stressed our concern about the pastoral impact of Archbishop Cushley’s governance Archbishop Edward asked for facts.  We gave the following current example.
Ss Ninian and Triduana, Edinburgh
Sunday 19th August – Parish issue ‘Ministering to Families’ Handout as part of a pastoral initiative to reach out to families.  Handout also issued to families at local primary.  In the Handout there was an invitation to the Family Mass on Sunday 26th August.
Tuesday 21st August – Fr Syriac OFM Cap, Administrator of Ss Ninian and Triduana, called to meeting with the Archbishop and informed that he was being moved to cover the parishes of Balfron and Blanefield until the Archbishop could get another priest to fill the vacancy permanently. This would be for a period of two to fourmonths.  
Sunday 28th August – Family Mass is a tremendous success.  Families we had not seen for a while were there;there were new families; families who attend regularly were delighted to see other young families.  
At the end of Mass Fr Syriac announced he was being moved temporarily to another parish.  As is his way he tried to frame the move as positively as possible but he also had to say that Monsignor Philip Kerrthe Dean,would be arranging the cover for our Masses and in the coming week more information would be forthcoming.
People were deeply shocked and whilst feeling great sympathy for the people of Balfron and Blanefield wondered about the pastoral rationale for such a decision.
There was concern for Fr Syriac, since he was being moved to parishes some ninety minutes travel time from Edinburgh, where he had the support of another OFM Cap priest friend from Kerala, like him.
Archbishop Edward asked what Fr Syriac’s Provincial’s views were and was told that we believehe is unaware of the move and in any case is currently in Rome.
b) We stressed that this individual example was a practical manifestation of the failure to listen to and adequately respond to the needs of the Archdiocese.
5. Impact on Clergy
a) We informed Archbishop Edward that we have had meetings with clergy who share our concerns and we understand that they also hope to meet with Archbishop Edward.
b) We are confident they will express in full their concerns but we shared:
i. We know that at least seven priests are discerning whether they can remain working in the Archdiocese under the present administration.
ii. We have a young priest discerning his ministry under the Archbishop’s leadership - exiled, unsupported, isolated. 
iii. Some foreign priests are deliberating about whether to return home.
6. Governance
a) Through our dialogue with Archbishop Edward it emerged that essentially, we were raising questions about the quality and competence of Archbishop Cushley’s governance’.  
Archbishop Edward stressed several times that we had to see the ‘human’ within Archbishop Cushley and as humans we all have failings.  
As Christians we all have a cross to bear and often the way is difficult.
He urged us to love and support our Bishop, who is our father, leading us in mission. 
We are a family, and things may go wrong in families at times, with people not talking to each other. 
He gave a personal example of how communication can breakdown in families but we need to continually seek ways to re-establish communication.
b) We stressed that we did indeed pray for Archbishop Cushley and we have sought for open communication but he has terminated further dialogue.
c) As followers of Jesus we do have a cross to bear, but surely the Archbishop should never be our cross!
d) As a specific example of poor governance, we raised aspecific safeguarding issue with regard to Monsignor Patrick Burke and the Archbishop’s failure to follow appropriate procedures.  
Archbishop Edward and Monsignor Matteo did not request any further information in relationship to the concerns expressed.
e) We expressed our deep concern that in this area clear and detailed procedures were being totally disregarded.
f) We further suggested that the handling of that situation was further evidence of the ‘favouritism’ that ArchbishopCushley had towards clergy linked to the Faith Movement.
g) We expressed our serious concerns about the large number of offices in the diocese that are held by a single member of the clergy.  Such a concentration of power in the hands of one person would be untenable in secular life, because it would be contrary to the public interest, since:
i. it risks harm to the office-holder from abuse of power and corruption
ii. it risks harm to those who may suffer such abuses
iii. it makes for weak management, because all depends completely on the single office-holder.
h) These considerations in the secular realm apply equally in the life of the Church and, in the case of our diocese, they indicate that its administration and governance are in a very weak position.  Moreover, the diocese's current disposition is totally against the advice given in Apostolorum Successores.
Archbishop Edward said there may be reasons why one individual has so many roles which you are not aware of.
i) Again, we asked for advice on what channels we had for raising these very serious concerns.
7. Apostolorum Successores
g) Throughout our dialogue we referred to the fact that so many, if not all, of our concerns are identified in the excellent guidance produced by the Congregation for Bishops, the ‘Directory for the Pastoral Ministry of Bishops “Apostolorum Successores (AS).
h) We stressed several times that this document was clearly written by Bishops who have a wealth of pastoral experienceIf the Directory were being followed, our Archdiocese would not be facing many of its current problems.
8. Ad Limina
a) Sharing about the impact of governance of Archbishop Cushley led to discussion on the upcoming Ad Liminavisit which was an opportunity for a Bishop ‘to receive helpful counsel and guidance on the problems of his flock’.  
b) There was concern that the completion of the Form for the Quinquennial Report, which had to be submitted to the relevant authorities prior to the visit, may not give an accurate indication of life in our Archdiocese.  Whilst boxes in the form may have been ticked as being addressed and actively responded to, the lived reality is different.
c) We asked how the Bishops at the Vatican would verify its authenticity.
d) The example of a school inspection was made in that a report is presented in advance to the inspectors, but they then come into the school to verify its accuracy.  
e) As universally, we look to a Church that is more open and transparent.  We asked if such reports could be made public.<