Monday, 15 September 2014


It has emerged this weekend that the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland has spent £50 million on settling its sexual abuse cases to co-incide with the "retirement" of it's boss Sean Brady!

Up to now the Roman Church has been sitting on dozens of sexual abuse cases and has been stalling on settling them for up to 13 years in some cases.

But now, all of a sudden, there was an urgenct in settling these cases as Brady stepped down from Armagh,

The tactic is obvious. Brady had become synonimous with bishops covering up sexual abuse by priests and moving them from parish to parish where they abused all over again.

Brady's personal role emerged in 2010 when it was discovered that he personally had interviewed two 14 year old boys about their abuse at the hands of mega abuserr Father Brendan Smyth.

Father Smyth - for whom Brady covered up
The then Fr Sean Brady brought the two little boys into a room and locked their parents outside where he proceeded to interview them about their abuse by Smyth.

In a weird turn of events Brady questioned the boys about whether or not they enjoyed Smyth abusing them - and whether or not the abuse gave them "dirty thoughts" and erections.

Furthermore he asked them if they had ever done the same thing with other boys and men.

What was Brady attempting? Was he attempting to shift the blame - or some of it - from Smyth to the children?

He then let the boys go home with their parents, reported to his bishop and did nothing else. Brendan Smyth went on to abuse other children. Some of the blame for that later abuse lies with Brady - as he never reported anything to the Gardai (police).

When questioned about the whole affair in 2010 Brady tried to do a Pontius Pilate and said: "I was only a note taker".

That a bit like one of the Roman soldiers who was part of the unit sent out to crucify Jesus saying: "I did not drive any of the nails in - I was only an "observer" - a note taker for the empire!

What was Brady's reward for being a note taker and NOT going to the police? He was sent to Rome to a cosy job in the Irish College. He was made tector of that college. The pope made him a monsignor.

Later another pope made him and archbishop - and later again a cardinal.

Climbing up the church ladder was Brady's "30 pieces of silver".

"What would it profit a man if he gained the whole world but suffered the loss of his soul"

But for a few pieces of red silk!

I doubt if it has made him happy since 2010 when his deeds, actions and lack of actions were exposed.

But even then he was allowed to spend 4 more years at the top of the Irish Roman Church and eventually he was allowed to "retire" - with so called "dignity".

And now in an attempt to try and make the matter go away the Roman Church has spent £50 million settling all the abuse cases that Brady have been sitting on for 13 years.

Why now?

1. Because Brady has gone and can no longer be embarrassed by the settlements.

2. To try and give his successor - Eamon Martin - a "clean slate".
Eamon Martin

Eamon Martin appeared yesterday morning on BBC Radio Ulster's religious affairs programme: Sunday Sequence. What was noticable was that he talked a lot but SAID NOTHING.

From Eamon Martin we can expect more of the same - nothing!

The Church is very foolish if they think that the Irish people will forgive and forget.

The Roman Catholic Church in Ireland is doomed - and the interesting thing is that it has not been destroyed by "outsiders".

It has been destroyed from inside by the cynical, political men who - posing as servants of Jesus - are actually servants of the Roman Empire Mk 11 which is all about power, mind control and money.

But there are still enough "ejits" in the pews who Sunday by Sunday will put their hands in their pockets and help the men of Rome recoup their £50 million of blood money.  

"There are none so blind as those who do not wish to see"

+Pat Buckley


  1. servingblogger15 September 2014 11:19
    Oh dear, all of this is depressing. I mean both the apparent state of D& C (I thought there was a gynaecological operation called that too !), and the out of touch renovations at Lisbreen.

    How is it, in this day and age, that clergy are moved around the chess board with such impunity, with no reference to the various parishes or the laity ? Even if it is done after consultation between Bishop and priest, the most important party in the affair, namely the parishioners in the pew, just have foisted on them someone from afar and from above with no say and no consultation. It epitomises the distain and contempt that the Church has for those who pay and pray. It's the same with the appointment of Bishops. A Diocese simply gets someone whom + Brown in Dublin and some prissy monsignori in Rome like the look and sound of, and hey presto he becomes a Bishop in a Diocese that has had no say at all. This is not sustainable, and the people increasingly will not allow such a top down imposition to continue.

    As for the clergy who have been moved, some will be happy, others will just have been told you are going. It probably depends on how 'in' they are with the establishment of the Diocese. The 'nice' people will have been given comfortable places.

    And, as for Lisbreen....well, I despair. It may need some renovation, but surely that should be done modestly and discreetly ? It is an insult to and abuse of the people who pay for these things, the laity, to be creating somewhere that is far beyond the circumstances in which most of the faithful live. And even if there have been substantial benefactors of the project, the money should still be spend soberly and simply. Again, the faithful will catch on and they will resist one day.

    + Noel appears out of touch, aloof, and just incapable of being a Bishop with the smell of the sheep on him. He is a product of the effete training of the Vatican diplomatic service, used to the gravy train of Brussels and international gatherings. How you can expect a man with that background to know how to pastor ordinary people in the simple ways of faith, I do not know. He was appointed because he came from outside and had kept his nose clean. No thought will have been given as to how good a Bishop and pastor he was going to be.

    I doubt if +Noel would ever be able to contemplate giving a room for the night to a vomiting druggie. The very thought of it ! That's the difference between + Pat (awkward and rebellious bugger that he is) and + Noel. Pat would invite the man in, look after him, follow him up and have the smell of the sheep on him. + Noel would be smelling of some designer perfume he picked up in some boutique on the Rue de Rivoli or Bond Street ( or whatever the equivalent is in Belfast).

    + Noel is not the only one, either. Too may Bishops think of themselves as having 'arrived' with an entitled expectation to be able to enjoy the 'kingdom' they have inherited. Many priests too, as they move in to their lovely parishes, and have uncontrolled access to the funds that the faithful have given. How many perfectly acceptable bathrooms and kitchens will be ripped out and replaced over the next few months as clergy re-do the house they have moved in to because they can't live with their predecessors interior designs ? If only the faithful knew the truth of it.... ! I know, because I did it myself years go, and I look back and am ashamed.

  2. Pat you are a model of fairness and non judgmental-ness. Not! The man has been in office less than a week and already you have written him off. Thank goodness he wouldn't take a word you say with any seriousness whatsoever.

    1. I can understand your criticism of me.

      Did you listen to him on Sunday Sequence yesterday?

      He said nothing. He would not commit himself.

      Surely I can be forgiven for thinking that he is just another one, albeit a younger and smiling one, who will tow the party line.

      I really hope I am proven wrong.


  3. Give the man a chance, otherwise in writing him off so soon you are just behaving in the way that Cahal Daly behaved towards you. What a tragedy that we end up treating others as we ourselves have been treated. Somehow or other this cycle has to be stopped.

    1. I take you point.

      I'm sorry if my disappointment with so many in the church structure leaves me with so little hope in them :-(


  4. Pat,

    Eamon Martin is 52 and if he has not become a little radical by this time he will not become radical now!

    If Rome had any doubt about his future observance of church policy he would not have been appointed in the first place.

    Even if he became a little radical Rome would not like it and would not give him the cardinal's red hat.

    And he would become something of a leper at the Irish bishops meetings in Maynooth.

    I do not know what (if anything) he has in him. But he is on a loser from Day 1

    PP D&C

  5. Pat Buckley is a nasty and bitter man. I suggest all you maladjusted and malcontent clergy go and join him and elect him as your "pope". I'm sure he will happily accept; but take care to read the Parable of the trees electing the thorn bush in the Book of Judges, for Buckley, a narcissistic man with a massive ego, will be that thorn bush. Look at his treatment of the poor dupe he attempted to "ordain", Terence Brady and take note. When you fall out with Mr Buckley, as you inevitably will for he falls out with everyone, even the dotty "Mother" Francis Mee, you will find your text messages etc. being relayed on this website. Bishop Treanor wouldn't do that but the mad Buckley will. Mr Buckley is a mass of contradictions and an unbalanced person. You have been warned. Go and expand his little sect with him and good riddance.

  6. Buckley you are a creepy lying, dark minded liar. You are bitter, jealous and a tragic figure.

  7. Regrettably it's a common trait in a certain type of person, that when they don't like those whose views are different, and/or they can make no reasonable or sound arguement against those views, their innately hostile and negative reaction is to descend to the level of personalised abuse.
    Alas it were ever so!

  8. Well said MMM,

    these people who descend to verbal abuse are y'days men. They are in denial.


  9. I took the trouble to listen to Archbishop Martin's interview on the radio via catchup. I have to say that I only got about half way through it before giving up ! It was just formulaic, cautious, full of cliches, and essentially upholding the status quo of the Church. I suppose that ++ Martin isn't really in a position to do much that is radical. The structures of Church just will hold him back, even if he wanted to do something different. I doubt if he is psychologically or theologically equipped to to be able to do much to change things. He's a man of his time and training. And he would not have been put in that position if he were not so, because the Vatican does not appoint people who do not come out of a very narrow school of thought and life. So, don't expect anything great, challenging, inventive, new, radical from the likes of ++ Martin. It will all be 'steady as she goes', with just a few meaningless cliches about empowering the laity etc.

    I notice that in England a new bishop of Leeds has been appointed - Mgr Marcus Stock. I wonder who asked the people of Leeds if they wanted him ? No. Just read his own statement, and it is full of the language of obedient servant of the Holy Father, and how he must respond to the call from the Church (meaning the Vatican and the Pope). There is not a word about the people of Leeds, and how much say they have had in having him imposed on them. Their role is simply to accept him quietly and obediently. There is something wrong there, surely ? The model as it works now just feels so out of place and so arrogant. And so dismissive of the real Church, which is the laity who give so much time, effort, faith and resources.

    ++ Martin and Mgr Stock have 'arrived' a the summit of a pyramid that is about to collapse, and should collapse. People will congratulate them on their appointments, they will say how honoured they are that the Holy Father has such confidence in them to give them this ministry, and they will talk about how they will serve faithfully and give their all. All well and good. But, it just looks upwards. They barely look downwards to the people whose Bishop they will be. You hear very little about that from them. It just sounds and looks all wrong. And, they won't even realise it, because they will content themselves with the formulaic cliches about being the father to their clergy and leading their people. Words, just words.

  10. How dare you put the photograph's of good men on your filthy site. You are filth. Go tell your sad stories elsewhere. Your a free loader.