Wednesday, 7 September 2016




MY READERS will be interested in the email I received yesterday from Blogger - the host of this blog:

6:05 PM (15 hours ago)

Google has been notified that content in your blog contains allegedly infringing content that may violate the rights of others and the laws of their country. The infringing content that has been made unavailable can be found at the end of this message. .

The notice that we received, with any personally identifying information removed, will be posted online by a service called Lumen at You can search for the notice associated with the removal of your content by going to the Lumen page, and entering in the URL of the blog post that was removed.

Terms of Service:
Content Policy:

The Google Team

Defamation Complaint to Google

Google Inc
[Private]Mountain View, CA, 94043, USReceived on 
Google Inc

Re: Unknown


Legal Complaint
Under review


So, someone, somewhere, seemingly in the UK has written to Blogger to complain that this Blog has "defamed" Father Paul Prior.

Blogger has removed 3 posts about Fr. Prior.

Who was the complainant? Was it Fr Prior himself? Was it his solicitors? Was it Maynooth? Was it the Irish Bishops? Was it Mickey Mouse?

You cannot defame people if what you say is true.

Anything I have said about Father Prior on this Blog was based on information I believe to be true - given to me by ex seminarians of Maynooth - who have also lodged formal complaints to the Garda.

If I have defamed Father Prior why does he not sue me and we could have the whole Father Prior and Maynooth issue sorted out in the High Court in front of the Irish people, the media and all other interested parties.

Or is the plan to have this Blog removed from the Blogosphere?

In any event I will not be scared away from the Maynooth topic and will not stop until we have the THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH and NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH out in the open.

I am asking all those interested in the Truth and in the Maynooth Scandal for their full support - please.



Maynooth: reviewing the response from the trustees  - Anthony Murphy

Smokescreens and denials 

The Trustees of the national seminary, St. Patrick’s College, Maynooth. met on Tuesday, August 23, to “discuss the needs of students and staff”. On Wednesday, a statement was issued which, it may be safely said, is as close as the Trustees will come (or have come) to admitting that there are serious problems with the seminary. Needless to say, despite this admission, many readers will undoubtedly be disheartened by the feet that it has taken almost three months for the Irish bishops to respond in any sort of way to the current crisis in Maynooth.

Many of you wrote to the Archbishop of Armagh, Most Rev. Eamon Martin, before the June meeting of the Irish Catholic Bishops’ Conference, and the standard response from the Archbishop’s house was that formation of seminarians was a priority for him and his brother bishops. Yet, there was no indication that the matter was seriously discussed at the Bishops’ Conference. Instead, what the faithful — among whom, the bishops now admit, there is disquiet — were dealt was a number of smokescreens and denials. For example, the Archdiocese of Armagh stated in early August that it would continue to support Maynooth Seminary by continuing to send seminarians there. The Archbishop of Cashel and Emly, Kieran O’Reilly, made a similar statement. The now- Bishop Emeritus of Ossory, Seamus Freeman, stated that, “The Diocese of Ossory continues to have confidence in Maynooth as a place of formation for candidates for the priesthood”. Around the same time, the President of St. Patrick’s College, Monsignor Hugh Connolly, was likewise defending the seminary, stating that he believed that there was a “healthy and wholesome atmosphere”. The lone voice in the Irish episcopacy was Archbishop of Dublin, Diarmuid Martin, who stated that he believed that there was a poisonous atmosphere in the college – so much so that, as has been widely reported, he decided to withdraw his seminarians from Maynooth and send them to the Irish College in Rome. 

The lone voice of Dublin 

This lone voice has been proved right and must be commended for taking some sort of action in the face of the controversy which has erupted - although he may not have been in the position to introduce changes to Maynooth on his own initiative, his actions have made a strong statement that all is not well. It must be said, however, that while the Trustees acknowledge that “the recent and extensive media coverage regarding the College, and the disquiet that it has caused amongst the faithful”, there would have been no reason for this media coverage or the resulting disquiet among the faithful if the bishops had listened to those with whose well-being they now appear to be so concerned: their seminarians. As this newspaper has pointed out time and time again, the seminarians studying for the dioceses of these same Trustees have raised complaints year after year about the state of formation in the National Seminary - complaints which have ranged from heterodox teaching, to homosexual behaviour among some seminarians, to unfair and unjust dismissal of seminarians by formation staff.

Deflecting from the Issues 

The Trustees “emphasise that the Church has clear instructions on the formation of seminarians. It is essential that there are observed in order to form Priests ‘after the heart of the Good Shepherd’”.  With respect to the Trustees, they appear to be stating the obvious and, in doing so, issues which have caused the present disquiet. The problems in Maynooth have festered precisely because the instructions set forth by the Churhc have not been followed. We must remember too that, while the central document on priestly formation is Pope Saint John Paul II’s Pastores Dabo Vobis, this is by no means the only relevant document. For example, given the more recent controversy of the existence of a homosexual sub-culture in the seminary, the 2005 Vatican document on the admission to holy orders of men with homosexual tendencies is particularly relevant. While the Trustees might say that “there is no place in a seminary community for any sort of behaviour or attitude which contradicts the teaching and example of Jesus Christ" - and there certainly should not be - the fact that the problems with the National Seminary have been in evidence for several years surely leads one to question whether this could always have been the attitude of the trustees. The response of the faithful here, surely, will be: “We know there should not be anything tolerated in seminary which goes against the example of Christ. Our concern stems from the fact that in many respects the seminaryhas departed from Christ’s teaching and example. We would like to know what you are going to do concretely to remedy this”.

The unhealthy atmosphere lit the seminary 

The Trustees share the concerns about the unhealthy atmosphere in the seminary. It is comforting to hear that they are sharing the concerns since the problems of the seminary have been exposed in both the Catholic and the secular media. However, this “unhealthy atmosphere” has been created, the Trustees claim, by “anonymous accusations together with some social media comments which can be speculative or even malicious”. This, it seems, indicates that the Trustees simply do not grasp the gravity or the depth of the issues that exist in the seminary and which are of concern to many seminarians, faithful priests, and lay faithful. What the Trustees appear to conveniently ignore is precisely what needs to be addressed if the seminary is to be reformed: namely the nature of the complaints themselves, and the reason why these complaints were made anonymously. There was an unhealthy atmosphere long before a single complaint (anonymous or not) was made - such an atmosphere might be caused by students being concerned that they are not being taught Catholic theology in its fullness; it might be caused by seminarians who are living double-lives.

Refusal to face the underlying issues 

With regard to the fact that complaints were made anonymously: while this is certainly not the ideal way to deal with the serious issues which have arisen in the seminary, we need to be looking at the reason why some seminarians felt this was the only appropriate course of action. Sadly, it comes down to the simple fact that many seminarians do not trust the formation staff in the seminary - we have heard time and time again that seminarians have been shown the door if they “rock the boat” and we have heard of seminarians being disciplined for trying to uphold the teaching of the Church, so it is little wonder that many do not trust the seminary staff and so resort to anonymous letters. Therefore, must we conclude the Trustees are still not willing - judging by their press release - to face the underlying issues.

On the measures to be implemented

The press release then goes on to outline some measures which will be implemented to deal with their concerns. This will include a review of “current policies and procedures for reporting complaints with a view to adopting best practice procedure for “protected disclosures”. We all want “best practice” of course; however, I thought that Monsignor Connolly insisted that there was already a “robust” procedure in place to deal with complaints. The Trustees appear to be contradicting the President of the College. In addition to this, a number of weeks ago when Monsignor Connolly defended the seminary on RTE Radio One, he commented on the case of a seminarian who had been dismissed for uncovering the existence of a homosexual sub-culture at the seminary. He claimed there was an “immaturity” on the part of this seminarian and how he went about making the complaint. Well, in light of the Trustees’ admission that the seminary’s policies need to be reviewed in order to adopt best practice, it is surely unfair to suspend a seminarian for not adhering to best practice when the college itself has not yet adopted best practice.

Furthermore, the Trustees request the “seminary authorities to evaluate and review the policy regarding the appropriate use of the internet and social media”. Surely there is not much which needs to be said on this point, except to note that if a seminarian is not capable of using the internet and social media responsibly, he probably should not be in the seminary in the first place. This, it seems, is as much - if not more - of an issue for those responsible for admitting candidates to seminary in the first place.

Why only talk about the future?
What about the present?

The Trustees' press release also states that they will assess future personnel and resource needs for the seminary. This, of course, is good and it is an ongoing necessity. However, the faithful and the seminarians — about whom the Trustees are so concerned — are surely asking: “Why only talk about the future? What about the present?”  It must be asked, are the Trustees not willing to assess the current staff in Maynooth right now as we begin a new academic year? And, if not, why not? It appears that the focus in all of this controversy is the seminarians rather than those at the top who could immediately effect change for the better in the seminary, but are neglecting to do so. Recent reports, for example, are saying that the seminary staff will now take supper with the seminarians and that the seminarians will be required to pray the Rosary as a community. Now, there is nothing wrong with these two measures in themselves. However, seminarians are now required to eat at table with a formation team that many of them simply do not trust. Will this help solve the poisonous atmosphere or will it fuel it? These changes affect the seminarians specifically and their freedom is what is affected by the two examples mentioned - now, again, the measures themselves may not be wrong, but it is a pity that the first two “tangible” changes that are made do not include any change of current personnel who have presided over the continuing disintegration of the seminary. Is the most pressing and most effective solution going to be the restriction of seminarians or an immediate change of personnel in order to restore seminarians’ confidence in the formation system?

In addition to these two changes which appear to have been introduced, the Trustees have said that the Bishops’ Conference will be requested to begin planning “for the introduction of a propaedeutic year (pre-seminary) for all applicants for priestly training'’. Again, it is a pity that the Trustees seem to believe that it is the formation of candidates for the priesthood which should be prolonged, and they are clear that this is for all applicants. Once again, however, we must ask why we have another suggestion which certainly affects the seminarians but which will not solve the underlying problems. After all, what good will a propaedeutic year be if the formation is not solidly Catholic and clearly in line with the norms of the Roman Catholic Church? The more immediate solution which ought to be called for, surely, is a reform from the top down - and then, perhaps, consider the introduction of the propaedeutic year when confidence has been restored in the seminary authorities.

Not another subcommittee!!

Finally, the Trustees are going to request that the Bishops’ Conference establish “a sub committee to examine, with relevant consultors and advisors the pastoral needs of priestly training in contemporary Ireland”. Yes, another subcommittee! So, “relevant” people will decide what kind of priest they want, and the pastoral formation will be moulded to suit their wants. Who will these relevant people be, and who will decide that they are relevant? What if I, as a member of the faithful, do not believe that they are relevant or that they are correctly putting forward “the pastoral needs of priestly training”? The Trustees noted that the Church already has documents and clear guidelines on priestly formation which apply to the Universal Church - why not implement these first before setting up a sub-committee to re-invent the wheel? The Trustees indicate that they will follow the “recommendation” of Pope Francis, quoting Amoris Laetitia, that the “presence of lay people, families and especially the presence of women” is important in priestly formation.

Firstly, we must remember that this is not a document on priestly formation but a document on love in the family, and that is the context in which the Pope makes the comment the Trustees quote. In any case, when it comes to the pressing issues of the badly-needed reform of our National Seminary, the concern should not be whether or not we have priests, laypersons, or “especially women”. The solution to this problem must transcend political correctness and gender agendas - the best people to reform Maynooth seminary are the best people to reform Maynooth seminary. If we end up with a group of “relevant” people who are all men, then so be it Likewise, if we end up with a group of “relevant” people who are all women, then let it be if this is in the best interests of proper Catholic seminary formation. Only when this alone becomes our focus - a thorough Catholic formation that we may have faithful Catholic priests - will the true reform for which we long be able to come about. 

M J Byrne most definitely in Rome... wonder did his Daddy get him a nice trousseau...?  the Canon is known as his Daddy to those who know about their involvement. The Deacon has a penchant for older men. Bet there will be many visitations as referred to on your blog ... the pro-cathedral will be hopping with frustration and seeking release. Aer Lingus shares set to rise on the strength of the extra business.

No downside it would appear for the Deacon or the canon.

Your special, inside the cassocks, correspondent.




The worried cow would have lived till now,
If she'd only saved her breath;
But she feared her hay wouldn't last all day,
And she mooed herself to death.



  1. Maynooth's days are numbered Pat. It looks like, unfortunately, that it will be a slow and painful death, instead of a swift clean out, which is highly warranted given the state of the Seminary formation processes and lack of morale among seminarians.

    I fear that it will take another round of scandals to force our inert Bishops into action on the Seminary Council.

    1. Yes, its days are numbered and those in charge have chosen a slow, painful lingering death for it.

      The lethal injection would have been more kind to all.

      It will take a collection of other small scandals or a massively big one to accomplish its death. It has had its day.

      We will have to wait and see..................

  2. Dear Pat I had breathed a huge sigh of relief when your blog was taken down last month. Not because of any wish to have you silenced; no, rather because I thought it would be your salvation. For it seems to me that blogging has taken over your life, and that this form of communication and all the nastiness it can entail - especially in the Comments - was defining you and all that you are and have been. That seemed to me such a shame, for I know you to be a good man and a good priest. I have no idea how much you spend on your Blog, but I would imagine that it is the first thing you do in the morning and the last thing at night, and probably most of your day is spent on it. Rather like a man addicted to porn sites, it seems to me Pat that you have become addicted to your blog. I can't say for certain but I am fairly sure that those who are closest to you are probably very worried about this. If you haven't asked them, maybe you should. Ask them to tell you - without fear or favour. Then as if by magic you were back on. I read that you saw this as a great victory against the Bishops? I don't think so. I think they want you to keep blogging, they want you never to stop, because the more you Blog Pat the more they control you and have you under their power, the more they dictate the agenda and make you their creature who reacts at their bidding. Its all very sad to my eyes Pat and I speak as someone who admires and respects you greatly. I would think it unlikely that you will publish this, but at least you will read it and maybe thats all I need you to do. For God's sake give up the blogging. Get back to the simple pastoral work that attracted you to the priesthood in the first place in the days of your youth. You have said everything you can say, should say. Don't let them control you any longer. Please. I beg you.

    1. I really do appreciate the concern you show for me in your comment :-)

      But I need to reassure you that the Blog has not taken over my life.

      I do write it early in the morning - except on Sundays when I am preparing for Mass.

      I really have not become addicted to the Blog. In ways it is a burden.

      But for the last 30 years I feel that my life is about challenging all that is wrong / evil in the RC system.

      At the same time of course I have, thanks to God, kept a strong Christian faith.

      My days are quite full of other things - answering the telephone, meeting callers, meeting couples who want to marry, celebrating marriages, a lot of non professional counselling and spiritual direction that includes many lay people and a small number of priests.

      Why would I not publish your comment?

      It is pregnant with positive love and concern.

      I will certainly give everything you have said deep thought.

      I wish all the criticism I receive was as constructive as yours :-)


    2. Anon at 16:52. Are you Timo?

    3. Pat, don't be taken in by that commentator at 16:52 on Sept 7th.

      I would say that is just one of the Gaynooth goons trying a different tactic - sweet talk - something they are good at with their pretty boys.

      Don't be fooled.

      For all you know it could be Fanny, or her close friend and confidante - Timo, or The Dog Ate Me Homework, or even the Wounded Healer herself, gushing out such unctuous concern.

      They really do think people are stupid. Guess what girlies? .... We have ye sussed.

  3. A lot of people want you to stop this blog because their scared. They know the truth will come out eventually. I am not hitting back at anon 16.52 in any way. But I believe Pat justice will be given to those who have suffered at the hands of the cowards of Maynooth and the Spineless Cowards who call themselves Bishops of the Irish conference. Keep seeking the truth about Maynooth and those abusing their power in the Church. I support you very much and please keep up your great work here. Prayers, strength and good health to you Pat.

  4. How strange your comments were removed. You are right in saying court is the place to sort defamation. Alleged defamation implies alleged guilt or as me mammy might say there's no alleged fire without alleged smoke. Get the buggers to put the content back there is a principle at stake. There is also the human interest angle of church welfare is in the interest of all

  5. Last Sunday week I attended evening mass at the pro cathedral. Canon o reilly in the middle of an insipid muddled homily denounced (quoting pope francis) "the terrorism of gossip".I wonder who that was aimed at?
    I think the remarks went way over the heads of those present.
    No pat. You are not a terrorist. You are a prophetic voice. As you know the biblical prophets were figures who told the truth, denounced evil and called people back to the love of God.
    They usually got a hard time, were persecuted and sometimes exiled.
    I think though it can be dangerous being a prophet. It demands integrity. Not easy. It demands using power with mercy
    This blog is very popular and powerful.
    A prophet can become hard and self righteous as our Lord pointed out numerous times to the clergy of his day.
    Continue to be a barb to the pointy hats.

    1. I hope I will never be selfrighteous. I have nothing to be selfrighteous about.

  6. The AB Martin Dublin is off to Lourdes. I assume from the pro cathedral newsletter that the Canon has gone to Lourdes to. Is Georgeous Deacon Michael gone too or did they handcuff him to a bed in the Irish College in Rome. I bet Canon would have a Tissy fit or should I say a dick fit if he didnt travel along and where id Chris Derwin ?. Balbriggan or ?. DM very slow letting his priest appointments been made public so far this Summer.

  7. Keep going Pat. This blog is therapy for me. I am sick of the clergy demanding that I deny the evidence of my own eyes. You see it, the way I see it. You are needed.��

  8. On a more mundane matter. My local curate was in maynooth along with fr prior. Fr priors main claim to fame was his fabulous hairstyle. Much speculation went into how he could afford all that hairspray. Nowadays we would naturally worry more about the environmental damage caused.cavan man Fr prior was plucked out of obscurity by the cavan cardinal and wounded healer sean brady and inflicted on the irish college in Rome. His appointment seems to be a case of jobs for the boys. Fr prior had no experience, no qualifications and seemingly no ability. Worse than that, if certain seminarians are to be believed he comes across as a bit of a creep. Do you remember those old priests who would quiz you in great detail about sins of the flesh but ignore other and probably more serious faults? Modern irish priests have their faults but most don't terrorise their flocks with threats of hellfire for impurity as in former would appear sadly that the old voyeuristic manipulation of young men's consciences continues in St Patricks college.
    Is this officially sanctioned by the Bishops? Yes or no?

  9. If the current Seminary Council in Maynooth were removed and replaced with genuine, holy, orthodox priests, St Pat's would have at least 200 seminarians within 5 years - guaranteed.

    Why do we never hear of endless streams of scandals coming from the Dominicans, who are doing very well with vocations relative to Maynooth and other orders based in Ireland? I tell you why: because they have inspiring, sincere priests in charge of formation and working as vocation directors; they make sure candidates are genuine vocations who are not just tagging along for the "ride" (no pun intended). Their formation process is permeated with a genuine Catholic spirituality and academics. I have met many of their seminarians and recently ordained priests; and I can vouch with surety that they are excellent seminarians/priests being formed/formed after the heart of the Church.

    Unless the management team in Maynooth is replaced, I for one will be continuing to warn young, genuine men away from that dying seminary.

    And Pat, keep up the good work in exposing the filth in Maynooth. You have the support of every genuine Catholic/Christian in Ireland.

    1. The trustees and bishops won't budge because of a number of factors.

      Firstly, more and more people are beginning to wonder if they all have each other by the goolies. "You tell on me and I will tell on you" - kind of scenario.

      It seems increasingly likely that some of higher-ups and very-higher-ups have been "at it" too!

      Second major factor is sheer arrogance and stubborn pride. This obstinacy goes right up to the feet of that gobshite, the "wounded healer", big aunty Sally Brady, who determinedly promotes and sticks by, come hell or high water, the nancy boys who lick his big fat arse in the hope of preferment and promotion.

      Their obstinate pride, however, will lead to their ruination. Watch that space.

    2. Most of them have slept their way to the top.

    3. If they think they can get away with it, there are a number of cautionary tales - of bishops and cardinals - who also thought they wouldn't be caught...... But they did get caught.

    4. Cardinal Brady promised that he would step down if it was found that he was in any way implicated in the sexual scandals. It was found that he was so in the cover-up of that MONSTER Fr Brendan Smyth. Instead of stepping down Brady hung on to power for dear life.

      How are we meant to trust the judgment or word of such an obstinate, obdurate and insincere man?

  10. Maynooth: reviewing the response from the trustees - Anthony Murphy.
    Although I'm not a follower of Catholic Voice I think that this is a very well researched and balanced article. I'm surprised that no one has responded to it - it being the main part of the blog so far. The article asks and answers the many questions I myself have been asking about this sorry Maynooth Seminary debacle. It is easy but SO dishonest and disingenuous of Maynooth trustees to blame the media, the blog, or the supposedly disgruntled ex-seminarians for the situation. The trustees [current AND former] need to take responsibility for their own action or inaction, as do many of Maynooth Seminary's current formation staff.
    Is it any wonder the laity is disillusioned??

  11. That article hits the nail on the head! Have any bishops read it?

  12. Well one would always remain dissaluisoned with the Church if the priests and Bishops did not recognize that by virtue of a male or female baptism that they are called to serve and ministry in the church and are disciples and ministers as much as the onec who gets Chrism poured on their hand at priestly ordination. Where we not all anoited with chrism too on the day of our Baptism on our hands and forehead and called to service in the Church.

  13. 20:36 you have hit the nail on the head.

  14. I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with immoral men; not at all meaning the immoral of this world, or the greedy and robbers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But rather I wrote to you not to associate with any one who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or robber—not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. “Drive out the wicked person from among you.” (1 Cor 5:9-13 RSV)

    In the above passage from Sacred Scripture St Paul clearly states that those who persistently cause scandal in the Church need to be removed for the good of their own souls and the souls of other believers.

    He also chides and scolds the Corinthians in the previous verses for their excessive tolerance in putting up with sexual immorality:

    It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and of a kind that is not found even among pagans; for a man is living with his father’s wife. And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be removed from among you. (1 Cor 5:1-2 RSV)

    It is clear from God's Word that the Irish Bishops are acting in a most arrogant and reckless fashion by not taking decisive action on the negligent - at best - Maynooth Seminary Council, and those Deacons and seminarians that are causing interminable scandal and outrage in the Irish Church.

    One is beginning to wonder how much longer this can go on for and what exactly goes on in the Bishops' heads? St Paul calls for the removal of a lay person from the Church because of grave sexual sins - how would he react toward the rampant scandal-causers among the ranks of the clergy and seminarians in Maynooth? He would clear the place out - that's what he would do!

  15. A wise Dominican once told this writer, that once the vice of sodomy has contaminated a seminary, Church authorities have only two options - close the place down and send everyone home or do nothing and simply wait for the moral rot to spread until the foundation collapses on its own. Why is this particular vice so deadly to the religious life? 

    According to St. Peter Damian, the vice of sodomy "surpasses the enormity of all others," because:

    "Without fail, it brings death to the body and destruction to the soul. It pollutes the flesh, extinguishes the light of the mind, expels the Holy Spirit from the temple of the human heart, and gives entrance to the devil, the stimulator of lust. It leads to error, totally removes truth from the deluded mind ... It opens up hell and closes the gates of paradise ... It is this vice that violates temperance, slays modesty, strangles chastity, and slaughters virginity ... It defiles all things, sullies all things, pollutes all things ... 

    "This vice excludes a man from the assembled choir of the Church ... it separates the soul from God to associate it with demons. This utterly diseased queen of Sodom renders him who obeys the laws of her tyranny infamous to men and odious to GodÖ She strips her knights of the armor of virtue, exposing them to be pierced by the spears of every vice ... She humiliates her slave in the church and condemns him in court; she defiles him in secret and dishonors him in public; she gnaws at his conscience like a worm and consumes his flesh like fire. ... this unfortunate man (he) is deprived of all moral sense, his memory fails, and the mind's vision is darkened. Unmindful of God, he also forgets his own identity. This disease erodes the foundation of faith, saps the vitality of hope, dissolves the bond of love. It makes way with justice, demolishes fortitude, removes temperance, and blunts the edge of prudence. (emphasis added) 

    "Shall I say more?" [43]

  16. Looks like we know now who was behind the attempted shutdown of the blog!

  17. 07.28 & 09.42. You really do need to get out in the fresh air a bit more. You are, to put it mildly, a bit anal!
    Simple Simon

    1. Christ and St Paul were anal then too.

  18. 12:24 thats blasphemy!
    A fatwah will be issued forthwith.

    Mullah McFenian