Friday, 22 August 2014

CARDINAL PELL - CHURCH NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ABUSING PRIESTS !

CARDINAL PELL - CHURCH NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ABUSING PRIESTS!

Cardinal Georg Pell - the former archbishop of both Melbourne and Sydney in Australia - and now the man in charge of the Vatican's finances - says that the church should not be held responsible for priests who sexually abuse!

He had this statement via video link from the Vatican to the Royal Commission in Australia who is looking into child abuse.

His argument goes like this - If a truck driver employed by a trucking firm takes a woman into his truck and sexually assaults her then the trucking company and its CEO should not be held responsible.

His argument is totally reprehensible and it shows the depts to which RC church leaders will stoop to avoid moral and financial responsibility for its abusing priests and bishops.

It does not say much for Pell's faith and spirituality that in his 70's he is willing to compare the Church - the Body of Christ - to a secular trucking company.

But it does tell us all we need to know about these wheelers and dealers in the hierarchy and clergy of the RC Church who are so cynical, ruthless and faith-less - as to compare the Church to a large for profit commercial company.

Do I really have to explain to Pell the difference between a truck driver and a priest?

1. A priest studies and becomes immersed in spirituality, moral theology and faith for 7 years of training while a truck driver only needs a HGV licence which he can get after 20 hours of practice.

2. A priest - according to Catholic teaching is supposed to be an "alter Christus" - another Christ - a truck driver does his 40 hours a week for the going rate.

3. A priest is supposed to be the exemplar of Christian and moral living - a truck driver has only to obey the rules of the road.

4. A priest is put in charge of people's immortal souls by the Church and his bishop - a truck driver is responsible for a machine while he is at work.

5. A priest takes vows / promises of poverty, chastity and obedience - a truck driver's moral responsibility extends to doing a decent days work for a decent wage.

6. A priest lives 24 hours a day on church property - a truck driver attends a place of work for 40 hours a week.

7. The church can move a priest from parish to parish all his life - a truck driver lives where he chooses and if his company wants him to move he can refuse and have the backing of the union.

8. The Church tells the men, women and children of a parish to do what the priests tells them to do in order to live a good life and save their souls - the truck driver's company only responsibility is to have insurance in case the truck / driver have an accident.

I could go on..

The RC Church literally "owns" a priest - body and soul from the day he enters the seminary until the day he goes into his grave. The Church is not only the priest's "employer" - the Church own the priest in the same way as masters used to own their black slaves in the US before the civil war.

If you claim to own someone absolutely - as the Church does - then the other side of that coin is that you are absolutely responsible for them and for all they do and don't do.

The fact that many of the RC dioceses in the USA have already been forced by civil law to pay out billions of dollars to the victims of abuse is the strongest indication of all that modern civil law regards the Church as responsible for the actions of abusing priests.

What Pell is afraid of is that the precedent already set in stone in the USA will be used in his native Australia - and elsewhere - to make the Church legally and financially culpable for abuse.

He is also afraid that in the future some good lawyer will find a way to make the pope and the Vatican legally and financially responsible.

Jesus Christ had the harshest of words for those who hurt little children.

When a priest abuses a little child he incurs the wrath of Christ.

When a bishop covers up for a priest who abused a little child that bishop incurs the wrath of Christ.

When a Vatican cardinal seeks to deprive a little abused child of the just compensation they are entitled to that cardinal incurs the wrath of Christ.

George Pell is 73. Sometime in the next 10 to 20 years he will go and meet The Lord. Is he not afraid that The Lord will ask him to explain his attitude to the victims of abuse?

Is he not afraid that The Lord will say to him: "As long as you did it to one of these, the least of my children, you did it to me"?

If I was him I would be afraid.

If he is not afraid? Is he deceiving himself? Is he brainwashed and blind? Is he arrogant?

Or - My God! - Is he a secret atheist? Does he not belive in God at all?

+Pat Buckley
22.8.2014.

Wednesday, 20 August 2014

WHY PRIESTS SHOULD WEAR THEIR COLLARS

WHY PRIESTS SHOULD WEAR THEIR COLLARS

A nember of years ago I went to meet a priest for lunch in a Dublin hotel. When I arrived my priest friend was very angry that I was wearing my clerical collar. He was dressed in a very beautiful casual shirt. He felt that my collar would draw attention to us and people would be staring at us and therefore we would be deprived of the pleasant "private" lunch he had planned.

I told him that I did not wear my collar to embarrass or annoy him but that I wore it for 2 reasons:

1. To give public witness to the fact that I was a priest follower of Jesus.

2. As an invitation to anyone that saw me that I was available to them if they needed me.

We had a very nice lunch and my priest friend kindly offered to walk with me to the car park at the top of Grafton Street, Dublin to where I had parked. On the way up Grafton Street a young man, who looked very distressed, approached us and said to me: "Are you a priest"? I said I was. He went on to tell me that he was a French student and that he suffered from a psychotic condition and that he had left his medication at home in France and was feeling very desperate. I asked him why he stopped me. He answered: "Because I could see you were a priest and I felt that you would help me". I looked at my priest friend who had been unhappy about my weraing my collar and he was a littled red in the face. No words were necessary.

I put the Freench student in my car and drove him to a nearby hospital A&E and stayed with him while the doctors examined him, contacted his French physician and then gave him the medication he needed. I have never seen or heard of that student since but I did say a prayer of thanks to the Good Lord for the opportunity of ministry.

For many years now priests have been abandoning the clerical collar - to the point where all the clerical supplier shops in Dublin have all closed down. You have to go on line now if you want a clerical item.

The abandonment of the collar has been greatly increased by the clerical paedophile scandal in the church. Priests are afraid to be seen to be priests as they are quite likely to receive strong verbal ubuse in the street.

On a number of occasions in recent years I have been followed in the street and been verbally abused and called names. I always stop and try and engage my abusers in conversation and tell them that only some 5% of priests are paedophiles and that most paedophilia takes place in the home, the family and in the family circle. Sometimes I suceed. Sometimes the abuse gets worse.

But it HAS NOT and WILL not stop me presenting myself as a priest in public - for the two very valid reasons I gave above.

So called "liberal" priests - especially in the religious orders - condemn the clerical collar and say that it facilitates CLERICALISM.

I'm sure that there are priests - especially some of the younger priests now coming out of seminary - who are into clericalism and feel that the collar sets them apart and puts them up on pedestals. What a terrible reason for wearing the collar.

The trendy and liberal priests say: "Jesus never wore a collar".

Its true he didn't. But my answer to that is that Jesus was God and he had a divine and spiritual presence that made people realise that he was the Son of Man. 

I don't have Jesus charisma. So I have to wear some outward recognisable symbol that I am his disciple and that I am there to help if needed.

When we go into hospitals we can recognise the doctors by their unforms and can approach them.

When we are on the street and need help we can recognise a policeman by his uniform.

When we are travelling in a plane and need a drink or help of some kind we recognise the air hostess by her uniform


I am am on the street and I need a priest for some reason how can I recognise him if he is wearing the same casual shirt and jeans as the other 500 men on that street?

A lot of priests nowadays will wear their clerical collar when they are in the church or about parish property.

They then wear casual gear when they are what they call "off duty".

But the problem is that a priest is NEVER off duty.

When I was a young curate in Belfast I used to go one or two nights of the week, after the youth club closed at 9pm for a beer with the youth leaders. We used to go to a social club in Ardoyne in Northe Belfast.

I always wore my collar on those trips. On thousands of occasions people came up to me to talk to me about an issue or a problem they had or even for Confession. I heard hundreds of confessions in the toilets in that social club. And the pople who approach me there were people who never came to church or never met a priest.

So in my case I was the priest going to them - to the places they inhabited and socialised.

I regard myself as a priest 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks of the year. I am a priest in my chapel - but I am also a priest in the pub, in a restaurant, on the train, lying on the beach in Spain (where of course I do not wear a collar :-) ),walking on the street.

Jesus had no days off. There was never a time in Jesus' ministry when he was not God, not the Son of God and not available to people.

A true priest, like a true Christian, has no days off. We are always available to God and we are all available to God's people.

Call me oldfashioned if you like. I have lived as a priest that way for 38 years and I hope to live that way until they carry me away in the brown box.

Jesus is the Good Shepherd. Priests are supposed to be representing Jesus the Shepherd

Shepherds are never off duty.

Sheep cannot read the clock.

Sheep do not only need their shepherd from 9am to 5 pm - Monday to Friday.

Sheep can get lost at any time.

The good shepherd will search for the lost sheep at any time, of any day, morning, noon, evening, midnight and at 3am if required.

There are 2 kinds of priests in our modern church:

1. Priests who are professional careerists with little faith and even less comapssion.

2. Priests who are good shepherds.

The People of God - the sheep - can quickly distinguish one from another.
Jesus calling - out of hours

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUMOUR:

In the Gospels we come across the story of the man who fell among robbers. One of the people who passed by on the other side of the road was a priest.

Question: Why did the priest pass him?

Answer: Because he was robbed already :-)

+Pat Buckley
20.8.2014.

Monday, 18 August 2014

WHO / WHAT IS THE ANTI-CHRIST?

WHO / WHAT IS THE ANTI-CHRIST?

I think it might be a great mistake to think that the ANTI-CHRIST is a person. Maybe, instead, the ANTI-CHRIST is a movement, an institution?

I think we know what Jesus Christ stood for. Maybe the anti-Christ is everything that goes against or tries to negate what the Christ stood for?

Jesus said that: "Foxes have holes and the birds of the air have nests but the son of man has no where to lay his head".

Maybe it is "anti-Christ" to have a Vatican, Lambeth palaces, bishop's palaces, grand cathedrals, basilicas and evangelical mega churches?

Jesus said: "Let the greatest among you behave as if he were the least".

Maybe it is "anti-Christ" to have kings, queens, emperors, princes, princesses, popes, patriarchs, cardinals, archbishops, deans, chancellors, monsignors, canons, archdeacons, rural deans, vicars forane, knights, lords, chaplains to Her Majesty?

Jesus said the first Mass / Eucharist lying on couches on the floor. May it is "anti-Christ" to have marble altars, gold candlesticks, gold chalices, lace altar cloths, lace albs, cloth of gold vestments?


Can you see Jesus in this picture?

Jesus' commandments were: "Love God, love your neighbour". Maybe it is "anti-Christ" to have Canon Law, books of rules, church courts, Roman congregations, rubric?

Jesus wore a single garment for which the Roman soldiers cast lots. May it is "anti-Christ" to have Papal Tiaras, Precious mitres with gems, solid gold pectoral crosses, solid gold croziers, palliums, 30 foot long bishop's trains made of silk and ermine?

Jesus was called Jesus. Maybe it is "anti-Christ" to have titles like Your Holiness, Your Beatitude, Your Eminence, Your Grace, Your Excellency, My Lord?

Jesus was a Jew who came to bring Judaism to its full bloom. Maybe it is "anti-Christ" to have created Roman Catholics, Protestants, Anglicans, High Church, Low Church, Methodists, Presbyterians, Free Presbyterians, Baptists, etc, etc, etc.

Jesus spoke aramaic - the common language of the people. Maybe it is "anti-Christ" to want to have all your services in Latin - the language of empire?

Jesus told his disciples not to be overlords and dictators to each other. Maybe it is "anti-Christ" for popes to be superior to bishops; for bishops to be superior to priests and for priests to be superior to those they call "lay" people?

Jesus apostles were mainly married men. May it is "anti-Christ" to insist that all bishops and priests be bachelors?

Jesus had prominent women disciples. Maybe it is "anti-Christ" to say that you must have a penis to be a bishop, priest or deacon?

On one occasion when Jesus was speaking, Peter, interupted him and Jesus said to Peter: Get behind me Satan. The way you think is man's way and not God's way".

So Jesus was accutely aware that man made thinking can be evil. The Christian Church today - in all its forms and denominations - bears very little resemblance to the "church" Jesus founded and intended.

Maybe all these man made changes and additions have so negated the teachings, spirit and will of the Chirst - that they are in fact ANTI-CHRIST?

Maybe instutionalised "christianity" - and not just one person or being -  is in fact the ANTI-CHRIST?

Maybe RELIGION is the anti-Christ?

+Pat Buckley
18.8.2014  


















  





Sunday, 17 August 2014

SUNDAY INDEPENDENT

Cardinal Brady’s resignation ‘too little, too late’ 

BY: JOHN SPAIN AND MICHAEL KELLY

Pictures added by Blog

Author and victim of abuser Brendan Smyth claims letter to Pope is ‘attempt to save face’


THE author of the recently published book Sworn to Silence that made devastating revelations about Cardinal Sean Brady has dismissed his resignation letter as “too little too late”. Brendan Boland was an 11-year-old altar boy in Dundalk when he was abused by Fr Brendan Smyth in the 1970s. Two years after the abuse began, he told another priest what was happening and a secret church inquiry was arranged.
He was questioned in isolation by a group of priests, including the then Fr John Brady. He was sworn to silence and the gardai were never informed, even though he had given the names of other boys who were at risk.
Yesterday, Brendan Boland made clear his dissatisfaction with the letter sent by Cardinal Brady.
Brendan Boland

He told the Sunday Independent: “This resignation is a long time coming. Cardinal Brady should have handed in his resignation back in 2010 (when a TV expose was broadcast).
“Maybe he should have never taken the job in the first place. He had crucial information at the time of his appointment: names and addresses supplied by me of numerous children who were at risk of abuse by Brendan Smyth. I thought I had been able to save these children but they were abused anyway.”
Mr Boland had supplied these names to the investigating priests, including Fr Brady, but no action was taken apart from telling Fr Smyth’s superior.
“I and other victims of clerical sexual abuse are extremely disappointed that although Cardinal Brady is resigning, it appears to us that he is retiring naturally upon turning 75, as if he has done nothing wrong.
“I feel let down again by the Church. In its attempts to save face, it has failed yet again to acknowledge the mishandling of the information I gave them back in 1975. This is really just another slap in the face for victims. It is not really resignation, it’s simply retirement,” he added,
Sworn to Silence first appeared on booksehlves four weeks ago and included explicit transcripts of the Church inquiry, revealing the intrusive nature of the questioning.
On the day of the inquiry in March 1975, 14-year-old Brendan Boland was alone with his interrogators while his father was left outside the room. At the end of the questioning he had to sign an oath of secrecy, also signed by Fr Brady, who was the most junior member of the canonical investigation, and was taking notes of the proceedings. The highly inappropriate questioning by the group of three priests makes shocking reading today.
Brendan Boland was asked if he knew what an erection was; whether his penis had become stiff; whether he liked it; whether he had done these things before with another boy or a man; whether the abuse by Smyth had led him to masturbate alone, and other intrusive questions.
In the book, he says that even as a boy he realised that this seemed to be aimed at making him feel guilty: “I felt it put blame back on me: the blame and the shame. Because if I was masturbating, well, that was because I enjoyed it. And if I enjoyed that, well, then I must have enjoyed being assaulted by Fr Smyth.”

Cardinal Brady was due to retire yesterday, his 75th birthday, but his early letter to Pope Francis expressing his desire to go may have been prompted by the embarrassing material in Mr Boland’s book. Ireland’s most senior Catholic clergyman had stubbornly resisted calls for his resignation for four years, and — at least as the official report in concerned — his exit will be classified as a retirement.
Under Church law, two types of bishops are required to immediately tender their resignations to the Pope: those who reach the age of 75 and those who have “become unsuited for the fulfilment of office”.
Cardinal Brady never wanted to be counted amongst the ‘unsuited’, hence his insistence on staying. Now, when the official statement from the Vatican is released announcing — sooner rather than later — that the offer of resignation has been accepted, it will list the fact that it is because of age rather than unsuitability.
Sean Brady had a meteoritic rise in the Catholic Church, from a boyhood spent in rural Co Cavan to acting as one of the select group who chose Pope Francis to lead the global Church in last year’s conclave,
It was his superiors’ decision to send him to study Canon Law that thrust a young Fr Brady in to the saga surrounding the notorious abuser Brendan Smyth in 1975.


Fr Brady acted as the note-taker — a role that would come back to haunt him 35 years later while trying to steer the Church in Ireland through its darkest days.

Saturday, 16 August 2014

SEAN BRADY RESIGNATION - PART 11

SEAN BRADY RESIGNATION - PART 11

Yesterday I published a STRONGLY WORDED Blog about the resignation of Sean Brady as Archbishop of Armagh.

There were 2 responses to that Blog:

1. It had TWICE the nornal 24 hour readership.

2. I was criticised by some responders for what I wrote.

CRITICISM:

I welcome ALL constructive criticism of everything I say and do. I am not infallible. I am a fallible human being. Like everyone I sometimes get things right and I sometimes get them wrong. The fact that I wish. today, to address the critisism of my Blog of yesterday, is an indication that I listen to criticism and examine myself and my conscience in the context of it.

ABUSE:

I have been on the receiving end of verbal and written abuse for 30 years now. Such abuse no longer upsets me. It says more about the abusers than it says about me. It certainly will not have the effect of stopping me expressing my strong held views and conviction.

BILE AND ANGER:

Some responders have said that I sometimes Blog with "bile and anger". I do not believe this to be true. I am a very content person and those who know me personally know that I am rational, mild, a listener and very open to the views of others.

But on some topics about which I feel strongly I am passionate in thought and in word. My writing style can be provocative. But I believe that there is a place - on some issues in particular - for what mught be called "righteous anger".

I think the abuse of little children - and the cover up of that abuse rightly draws righteous anger.

What about Jesus when he went into the temple with the whip? I'm sure the Pharisees and many others watching would have said: "This Nazarene is full of bile and anger".

There is a world of difference between between irrational bile and anger and righteous anger.

JUDGEMENT:

I have been accused of judging Sean Brady. I am not God and I am not entitled to be Sean Brady's final judge.

But I am quite entitled to judge his actions and his inactions against the background of the teachings of Jesus and Christian Moral Theology.

Are people trying to tell me that:

1. Sean Brady was right to interview 2 little boys in a room with their parents locked outside?

2. That Sean Brady was entitled to swear two immature 14 year olds to canonical secrecy?

3. That Sean Brady was entitled to ask the boys if what Brendan Smyth did to them led then to have "impure thoughts"?

4. That Sean Brady was right not to report Brendan Smyth to the police - no matter what his bishop thought.

We can not judge Sean Brady in the sense that we can say that he is not destined for Heaven. But we can make the judgement that his handling of those two little boys go against Gospel values and the precepts of Christian Moral Theology.

SEAN BRADY'S SOUL:

Of course Sean Brady HAS a soul. 

But Jesus did say that it was possible for any of us to LOSE our souls - when He said: "What would it profit a man if he won the whole world but suffered the LOSS of his own soul".

No one can take our souls away from us. But we can give away our souls. We can sell our souls.

The Nazis wanted Dietrich Bonhoeffer to sell or abandon his soul to them and stop criticising them. But Bonhoeffer refused to give them his soul and he became a Christian martyr.

Father Maximilian Kolbe also refused to give his soul to the Nazis and as result too he died singing God's praises in a sweat box in the concentration camp.

GANDHI refused to sell his soul to the British in India.

In my opinion, Sean Brady sold his soul to the Roman Catholic Institution. He may have believed - and may still believe - that he was doing "God's will".

But surely he only had to read his New Testament to know that this was not God's will. Or was he so brainwashed by Catholic theology and propaganda that he did not know what he was doing?

But he must have known that he was being rewarded for something:

1. Vice Rector of the Pontifical Irish College.
2. Rector of the Pontifical Irish College.
3. Monsignor.
4. Archbishop.
5. Cardinal.

These "rewards" are not given to prophets, heroes, revolutionaries, visionaries, warriors.

These rewards are given to "safe men"; "company men"; footmen; hirelings; lackies; retainers; vassals.

The cost of these rewards are the relinquishing of one's integrity of soul.

There was never a Cardinal Martin Luther.

There was never a Cardinal Francis of Assissi.

There will never be a Cardinal Hans Kung.

+Pat Buckley
16.8.2014
75th Birthday of Cardinal Sean B Brady.



Friday, 15 August 2014

CARDINAL BRADY - AN ASS LICKER GETS AN ASS LICKERS REWARD?

CARDINAL SEAN BRADY - AN ASS LICKER GETS AN ASS LICKERS REWARD?

So Pope Francis is to accept Cardinal Sean Brady's resignation - and Sean Brady is to be ASSUMED BODY AND SOUL INTO OBLIVION.

But I wonder does he have a soul? Did he not sell his soul to the Roman Catholic Mafiosa? As a reward they made him a monsignor, an archbishop and a cardinal.

And now they are ready to sacrifice him on their PR altar and wipe their hands of him - making him a scapegoat for the Church's sexual abuse and sexual abuse cover up.

Sean Brady never had any balls. If he had them in the beginning they were removed from him during his so called "formation" in the seminary brainwashing process. 

They then got him to immerse himself in Canon Law - the modern version of the laws, rules and regualtions of the Pharisees. 

He became a bishop's secretary and in that position his job was to do the bishop's dirty work. Part of the dirty work was to bring two little boys who had been sexually abused by BRENDAN SMYTH into a room - locking their parents outside - and swear them to secrecy. He also questioned them as to whether they might have somehow enjoyed Smyth's abuse of them and went on to have "dirty thoughts" about their abuse.

This was Brady mentally and emotionally abusing the boys for a second time!

He then did a Pontius Pilate and handed his notes over to his bishop and forgot all about the poor little boys.

Of course he did not report the abuse to the Irish police. His bishop would have told him not to. And even if Brady had the balls to go against the bishop - which he hadn't - the bishop would have seen to it that Brady's "career" was over. The bishop would have also sent for the local police superintendent and the matter would have been buried by that devout, Roman Catholic, Mass going superintendent.

But at least afterwards Brady could have held his head up high and said he had done the right thing - the Christian thing - the courageous thing. 

But of course any courage he may have had in his youth in rural County Cavan was well gone after his time in the seminary, his Canon Law studies and the prospects of wearing purple and scarlet.

I wonder if Brady ever even gave a second thought to those two poor little abused Cavan boys that he had handled with the "skill" of the inquisitor. Did he think about them when was made rector of The Irish College in Rome? Did he think of them when he was made Archbishop of Armagh. Did he think of them when the Pope placed the scarlet biretta on his bowed head?

Of course he didn't. They were not worth the froth on his capuccino. They were not worth the sediment at the bottom of his bottle of Barolo. They were not worth the dandruff on hid red shoulders. They were simply collateral damage on his career path.

But God is good. And fate is not bad either. Those defenceless little abused boys were destined to return to haunt his life and his career when he was at the very top of his pole. 

Sean Brady will ALWAYS be remembered for ONE THING ONLY - that he was part of covering up for Ireland's most nororious priest paedophile - that he was the so called "note taker" who locked two little boys in a room and swore them to secrecy about their victimhood. 

"WHAT WOULD IT PROFIT A MAN IF HE GAINED THE WHOLE WORLD BUT LOST HIS SOUL"

"WOE TO THE MAN WHO HURT THESE MY LITTLE ONES - BETTER FOR THAT MAN IF HE HAD A STONE TIED AROUND HIS NECK AND HE BE THROWN INTO THE DEEP SEA"

As Brady relinquishes the See of Armagh he is heading for the seas of retirement, oblivion and judgement.

At this stage the 30 pieces of silver in the pocket of his cardinal's crimson cassock should represent an unbearable burden.

But then you would have to have a soul to feel that :-(

+Pat Buckley
15.8.2014
Feast of the Assumption Sean B Brady into Oblivion