Thursday, 22 September 2016




The name of this secret chaplain is none other that FATHER CIARAN DALLAT - the former parish priest of SACRED HEART PARISH BELFAST who made one of his parishioners PREGNANT.

Not only did Ciaran Dallat make "Linda" pregnant after sleeping with her in LOURDES and SAN GIOVANNI - Padre Pio's monastery - but he actually went out to dinner with friends as the woman lay on her bathroom floor losing their baby!

How callous, uncaring and unchristian is that?

Linda, with my help arranged a meeting with Bishop Treanor but found him totally unreal in his response to her - although he did pay for counselling for her.

Then Bishop Treanor allowed CIARAN DALLAT to take a short holiday or sabbatical and then invited him to the cathedral to renew his vows with the other Down and Clergy at Holy Thursday's Chrism Mass.

There was public outcry at Dallat's pending return to ministry.

So what did Treanor and Dallat cook up? He would go to Maghaberry Prison as chaplain to the Catholic prisoners.

In other words he was been sent there to be a GOOD EXAMPLE to other CATHOLIC MEN who had done wrong!

But Treanor and Dallat knew that their plan was unacceptable. So they decided to conceal his appointment by putting a false address for Dallat in the Diocesan Directory and by NOT putting his name in the directly as one of the chaplains.



H M Prison Maghaberry:

Old Road, Ballinderry Upper,
Co Antrim,
BT28 2TP
Tel: (028) 9261 4825

Pastoral Team:
Rev Frank Brady SJ,
Rev Gabriel Bannon,
Bro Brian Monaghan,
Sr Rosaleen McMahon

Father Brady, Father Bannon, Brother Monaghan and Sister McMahon - but NO MENTION of CIARAN DALLAT !!!

And yet Treanor has sent him there. He is saying Mass there. He is visiting prisoners in their cells. He is even visiting prisoners wives, girlfriends and families.


This Blog has learned that the prisoners do not respect. One of them recently called him "pervert".

And he is even receiving a CIVIL SERVICE SALARY from the Northern Ireland Government out of tax payers money!

Bishop Treanor has even given him a cover address:

Address: The Cathedral Presbytery, St Peter's Square, Belfast, BT12 4BU, Belfast CC

Phone: 028 9032 7573

He is NOT a CC (curate) at the cathedral.

He is NOT living there. 

He is NOT VERY REV - which is a title reserved for a PP which he is not.

So, what is the reward then in Down and Connor for breaking your celibacy promise, making a parishioner pregnant and allowing her to lie ALONE losing the baby YOU placed in her womb?

The reward is:

A brief all expenses paid holiday.

A secret job with a civil service salary.

A cover address.

AND.............the pretence that you did nothing wrong and have nothing to regret !

And then we expect people like NOEL TREANOR to renew the Irish Church and to reform Maynooth Seminary?

As the fella said: "PULL THE OTHER ONE - IT HAS BELLS ON IT" !




The Road Not Taken by Robert Frost

Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,
And sorry I could not travel both
And be one traveller, long I stood
And looked down one as far as I could
To where it bent in the undergrowth;
Then took the other, as just as fair,
And having perhaps the better claim,
Because it was grassy and wanted wear;
Though as for that the passing there
Had worn them really about the same,
And both that morning equally lay
In leaves no step had trodden black.
Oh, I kept the first for another day!
Yet knowing how way leads on to way,
I doubted if I should ever come back.
I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I-
I took the one less travelled by,
And that has made all the difference.



  1. The MP for the area where the prison is located should be asked for clarification of his position, for example, who approved his appointment at the prison and have proper procedures been followed in his recruitment, including screening and/or full disclosure if required.

    1. He was recommended to the N I Prison Service by Bishop Treanor and the decision to appoint him was made by a senior civil servant. I made representations to that civil servant and was ignored.

    2. The MP for the area the prison is located should be ask to clarify the position with the senior civil servant involved.

    3. Pat, I have no vested interest in the priest in question. However, one question to you. Why are you mentioning priests by name and delving into their activities/lifestyle? E.g. Fr Trendy, the chaplin mentioned above. They are men with their own human frailties. You mentioned that you believe in a morality of compassion, I see very little compassion here.

    4. Yuu would need to know the whole story!!!

  2. It is an ‘essential requirement’ of the Civil Service Commission that any applicant(s) for chaplaincy jobs must not only be ordained but also in ‘good standing’.

  3. I would not want him to visit my wife if I was in jail
    I hope his employer sacks him immediately
    He should not be employed to talk with vulnerable

  4. Absolutely no faith anymore....

  5. There is great strength in accuracy.

    If the 2016 Diocesan Directory accurately reflects the situation towards the end of 2015 when it was printed that is as much as can reasonably be expected.

    Also, it is completely normal for chaplains to public institutions to be freely nominated by their own religious authorities.

    1. I'm talking about the Diocesan Website TODAY which can be kept completely up to date with a key board.

  6. Pat, what about young Michael Deegan's abuse and suicide in Thurles and reporting to the Garda?

    What about the woman who alleged she was raped by D&C priests (blog April 28th)? You said you were going to the Police.

    Any developments on these cases?

    1. Months ago I reported that rape to the PSNI and they have been to interview me and are currently investigating.

      I am reporting the Michael Deegan story as we speak.

      Sadly, there are special difficulties with historic cases.

      But I am on it.

  7. I thought prison employees need to be cleared by the Home Office. Any risk should show up on their check

  8. Blessed are the merciful. They shall have mercy shown them!

    1. Mercy is very important.

      But what do we do about cover up?

      What do we do about the cynical clerical club?

      What do we do about Jack The Lads why PREY?

  9. What would Jesus do? I don't think he'd do what you're doing. You're evil Pat. I dare yoiu to publish this comment, but I know you wont.

    1. Jesus would and DID show great mercy and love to sincere sinners.

      But he was vicious with the hypocrites and Pharisees.

      And your comment IS published.

  10. At the risk of repeating myself those in authority don't give a toss and the sheep seem too afraid or disinterested to make a difference

    1. Why can't I shake off the feeling that people have become resigned to behaviour that hurts others and rationalise it? Sometimes people have done things they cannot forgive themselves for and condoning bad behaviour in priests and politicians makes them feel better. They don't feel so odd people out. I have never been comfortable about how the Catholic system where clerics get more reverence than the Pharisees ever demanded can read the sermon on the mount at Mass and do the exact opposite. It is interesting how they display celibacy as a sacrifice when Christ said sacrifices that are true are only known between you and God. You probably know that there was a campaign to get Dallat reinstated on facebook and vigils and everything. I think evildoing will increase and get more extreme the more people see a murderous father (think of Cavan) and callous priests being not only exonerated but virtually treated as incredible people and special. A disgraced single mother who raises her baby does far more good than they can ever do and surpasses even the pope in the reverence and respect she deserves.

    2. 12:29, what a wonderful comment.

      Thank you.

  11. Are the newspapers aware of this latest episcopal sleight of hand?

    1. @magna carta, as a matter of interest, are you an atheist?

    2. No, 14:25, I am not an atheist.

    3. Quite right, Magna Carta,
      You are most certainly not an atheist.
      Someone had suspicions that you were God - and you never denied it.
      Why couldn't the omnipotent God not post a comment on Bishop Buckley's pages (?) under the pseudonym Magna Carta.
      If he really is not God he is suffering from delusions of personal Divinity!

  12. 10 33.. I still try to push on with my faith in my own way..yes it's difficult.
    11 41 and 59
    Take your heads out of the sand and cop on.

  13. *********

    MOURNEMANMICHAEL is having problems placing comments on here from his tablet.

    Anyone else having that problem?


    1. If this arrives - not me.

    2. Yes. Frequently.

  14. Always have probs....have to log off and on again



    Will publish for you under your desired handle - Anonymous or whatever


  16. Re: That ReCaptcha thing
    willo thewisp

    Today, 12:35
    Dear Anon @ 10:19: from following +Pat's blog for about two years now, I think his criticisms are less directed at individual's personal frailties or mistakes, but more at systemic failings which place dependent or vulnerable persons at risk of abuse. While he does occasionally make misjudgements and goes 'over the top', nevertheless his intentions seem good and I believe his attempts to shine light in dark and murky hypocritical practices are welcome.
    With respect to Dallat, I don't think that past evidence gives much hope that this particular leopard is likely to 'change his spots'. And the analogy is apt. A leopard is a cunning seeker of prey.
    That his bishop chooses to ignore his past record speaks volumes.

    1. I have every sympathy for a priest - or anyone else - that makes a mistake or has a fall.

      "The just man falls seven times a day".

      But I have BIG PROBLEMS with:

      1. Any individual who uses his position to hit on vulnerable people and do so as of habit.

      2. The systematic cover up of such individuals by the authorities.

      Have people already forgotten about the serial child abusers and the decades of cover up?

      Men and women can be victims as well as children.

    2. I am very grateful that God will be my judge - I think I would have a better chance with Him - rather than with quite a lot of your followers!

    3. From what I have observed a lot of the laity deify the clergy. They cannot separate the institution from the message. They believe to go against the clergy, is to go against God. This gives the clergy tremendous power and responsibility. We need a very high standard of moral behavior from the clergy.

  17. It doesn't say much for the other candidates if Dallat got the job.

    1. He was the ONLY candidate.

      Noel Treanor has a VETO!

    2. He was the ONLY candidate.

      Noel Treanor has a VETO!

    3. Any individual may complain to the Civil Service Commission that the requirement for selection for appointment on merit on the basis of fair and open competition has not been met. Its the law.

    4. On the contrary, you will find that it is the sole right of the bishop to nominate Catholic chaplains. You may be sure that he considers a number of candidates and gives due consideration to any observations the authorities might have to make on them.

      Catholics pay their taxes like all other taxable citizens. The state recognizes that chaplains make a valuable contribution and remunerates them accordingly.

    5. @ 18:21

      To propose or nominate a candidate does not override the CSC selection process.

  18. Lots of people ready to cast the first stones - aren't there????
    The quality of mercy seem to under considerable strain!
    Pip & Sam Fan

  19. One person should not have Vito in a job like that. Is Church paying sallary

  20. So as regards the comments at 13.44 and putting those comments into the context of the seminarians who have taken no vows (excluding the deacons since they have in fact given solemn promises) who have (1) fallen where there is evidence of that or (2) been named in the comments section of this blog without any evidence of having fallen (I am talking here of those named in the comments section beyond the Famous Four), in what way have they abused their positions vis-a-vis vulnerable people? And on what basis can it be said that they have lost their right to privacy merely as a result of enrolling in a discernment programme known as 'seminary'? It is clear that they are not living as they ought for men preparing for eventual priesthood and that the management of Maynooth is a utter disaster, but I would have thought that more mercy might have been shown for 'just men who fell seven times a day' or 'night' as the case may be. Why no mercy for them?

    1. Seminaries are not JUST places of discernment.

      You are expected to be celibate and chaste from day 1.

      Secondly by joining the seminary they are publicly proclaiming that they support RC teaching. How can you do that in words and act differently?

      Thirdly most of those mentioned are on sites looking for promiscuous sex. Is that in keeping with preparation for Catholic priesthood.

      They are fooling some of the people all of the time


      All of the people some of the time.

      They are quite prepared to become ordained and become Jack the Lad priests.

      The "problem" does not start on the day of ordination.

      The problem is in the mindset.

  21. Point 1 is fair. They are expected to be chaste from Day 1. That in and of itself does not merit a breach of their privacy until they have given promises. There may be all sorts of reasons why they breach that expectation, and if they do so repeatedly, then they should not be ordained. Men go into seminary (if they go in with good faith) to work out if they have a calling - any maybe they do not. But until they get close to the stage of ordination and actively present themselves as a candidate, I would have thought it was unfair to get into detail about their private lives. The fact that they MIGHT go on to be ordained and be Jack the Lad priests is insufficient justification.

    Point 2 - the same could be said for any Catholic who continues to be a member of the Catholic Church. It could be argued that by remaining in that Church, tacit support is given to each and every jot and tittle of doctrine. Which of course is not the case for the vast majority of Catholics, seminarians or priests. What about lay readers? Extraordinary ministers? Youth volunteers? So all Catholics lose their right to privacy merely by virtue of being Catholic? Granted, those who are ordained are in a different position as they teach the faith. But until that happens, I cannot see the justification.

    Point 3 - that may well be the case and it is wrong of them to do so. You are right - it is not good preparation. That, however, is not an argument for exposure and breach of privacy during their seminary time. If they were putting themselves forward for ordination in the immediate future, then maybe.

    More generally, there have been various others named in comments on this blog about whom no evidence has been produced nor has it even been suggested that any evidence exists. I cannot see any fairness or natural justice in allowing those comments to be published. Or indeed mercy.

    I agree with your analysis that the problem is the mindset, and that it does not start with ordination. But fighting injustice with injustice (in the case of those named for whom no evidence has been provided) or lack of mercy (in the case of those about whom evidence exists) is not the way forward in my opinion.

  22. 17.06 go read the Rite of Ordination when the Candidate is called forth from the People to be presented for Ordination. It talks about him been suitable for this life and especially after his years of formation the Bishop adksk after inquiry among the people of God, Do you judge him to be worthy ?. This is in refetence to his uears of formation and not just to up to the point where he receives ordets or Diaconate.

  23. 17.06 not until they get close to Ordination or the order of Candicacy. But from day 1 of their formation. Thats what the tector is asked by the Bishop at the beginning of the Rite of Ordination.

  24. Celibacy in RC Priesthood is not something that kicks in on the day of ordination. That is too legalistic and unnatural. Candidates have to give it an honest shot from day one. I discovered I could not live with celibacy after I was ordained. This is very different to saying I'll only apply the rule at Deaconate

    1. If anyone thinks that a seminarian can f**** around for his first five years in the seminary and then go 100% celibate on been ordained a deacon they are gravely mistaken.

      The bishop presumes that the seminarian is celibate / chaste from day one in the seminary.

      I do not agree with mandatory celibacy - but if you enter an RC seminarian THAT is what you are promising.

    2. Let's just get rid of mandatory celibacy. Allow women priests and same sex marriage.
      It would not bother me at all to have two married men in the presbytery.

  25. "We need in every community a group of angelic troublemakers"

    Maybe you are one of those angels, Pat?

  26. Happy Harry and Sean Page, I do not disagree with your assessment but you have missed the point.

    The point I am making is not whether or not a seminarian is suitable for priestly ministry, but about whether or not it is appropriate, in Christian charity, publicly to dissect the private life of an individual who has not presented himself for ordination.

    Furthermore, whether it is appropriate, to name individuals (as some have in comments on this blog) and infer that those individuals are sexually immoral in the absence of any evidence. I am not referring here to the most infamous of the characters in this saga. Others have been named and it is a grave injustice that this is the case.

    My references to 'close to ordination' and similar comments are not an argument that a suitable lifestyle begins at that stage. My point is that if there is a risk that a candidate is presenting himself for ordination, but that through his seminary years, he has behaved in a way that is inconsistent with his calling, then there MIGHT be a case for that individual to be publicly named if they intend to proceed. At this point it becomes a matter of wider interest, where it may be legitimate to tip the balance in favour of freedom of speech. I am saying that until that point in time, it is a breach of that individual's right to a private life publicly to discuss those matters.

    There is a careful balancing act in balancing the right to freedom of speech and the right to privacy. The concern I am writing about is that this balance has not been struck properly in the comments on this blog, and more so given that most people contributing to this blog are Christians where one might hope for a more merciful tone to prevail, and for grace to be demonstrated.

    It is absolutely correct that seminarians do have to give celibacy an honest shot from Day One. It is an entirely legitimate expectation, but it is not at that stage a matter for public interest when it comes to the specific life of an individual, who has the right to have his dignity protected. Where I disagree entirely is that seminarians who fail to give it an honest shot should be publicly humiliated, or that unproven innuendo should be published.

    As an aside, though it was not the point I was making, the chief responsibility in the whole sorry mess is the management of Maynooth who have failed miserably to do their job in seeing to it that seminarians who do not keep the expectation of chastity leave the seminary.

  27. I do not think a seminarian can "f*** around for this first five years" and then go on to 100% celibacy. Again, the issue is in what circumstances is it justifiable to breach the privacy of seminarians who are not in imminent "danger" of being ordained? I consider celibacy and chastity to be absolutely essential from Day One, but that is a distraction and not the point under discussion.

  28. I hope nobody is in danger of being ordained. F*ng about is very different to discovering one is not suited to celibacy. It's not just about the Willy Billy

  29. Obviously bishops aref delusional If they think they can change the mindset of a sexual predator

    1. And yet if a priest leaves to marry and acts conscientiously, the bishop will kick him up the arse and send him flying into kingdom come with his p45, never to be seen or heard from again, often with very little by way of money or qualifications to make his way in the world. There's something rotten in the state of Denmark when the predators and schemers and sociopaths can hang on while men of integrity and honesty get the boot.

    2. It's called money21.52...they won't leave the cash integrity

  30. So those of you who think the rest of us are not merciful actually expect people to turn a blind eye to the goingson of the Rc church and bend down and kiss bishops rings...NO...theses bishops need to be held accountable, funds removed from them,most demoted and church matters to be decided by the people in communities via voting.And all these robes and trimmings abandoned
    Pat....were you celebate whilst within the Roman C church

  31. All this talk about celibacy and seminarians has got me thinking about King Puck! Wonder how he's doing? I miss hearing about Puck......and I miss seeing him in his jockstrap......phwoar!!!

  32. Is he on a period of discernment
    Or a sabbatical
    Or just absent from gaynooth?....was he a decon?