Monday, 12 December 2016



SOME BLOG READERS asked me to issue a response to the blog written yesterday by FATHER X - the sexually active young gay priest from Northern Ireland.

First of all I want to say that the piece was written by the sexually active young priest himself and not by anybody else including Yours Truly.

Secondly I want to say that everything he said was absolutely true and that the things he spoke of happened in his own life and in the lives of other sexually active priests.

In fact he could have gone into more detail had he wanted - and while I think that level of detail is unnecessary it would have been a much more shocking blog had he done so.

The question arose in yesterday's blog about how I treated this priest DIFFERENTLY that I have treated the sexually active Maynooth seminarians and the likes of Father Rory Coyle.

Can I say first of all that from the day and hour I met Father X he was totally honest with me about everything.

The Maynooth seminarians on the other hand consisted of a gang of sexually active gay seminarians who were BULLYING other seminarians - sometimes to the point of mental torture and occasionally were bullying them out of Maynooth altogether.

We know of at least one suicide in an Irish seminary due to gay bullying!

Father X on the other hand has never bullied anyone. In fact he himself was the victim of bullying in his time in the seminary. 

In fact at the time he was being bullied he wrote to and had a meeting about the bullying he was undergoing with the Primate of All Ireland - Cardinal Cahal Daly. Cahal Daly refused to believe him and refused to do anything about the bullying in that seminary!

The case of Father Rory Coyle is different too. Father Coyle held a senior position in the Irish Church as Master of Ceremonies to Cardinal Sean Brady and Archbishop Amy Martin but was secretly on GRINDR showing his face and private parts to a young man whom he had schooled in religious studies in his diocese.

Father X has never held a senior or high profile position in the Church - and does not want to hold one - and has never tried to seduce anyone for whom he once had pastoral responsibility. To my knowledge he had never shown his genitals to anyone via the internet.


What Father X is doing and has done is without question completely against Catholic teaching - a fact he fully acknowledges.

Jesus himself had little or nothing to say about sexuality.

But I think we can very clearly say from his teaching about love is that we should always use of sexuality in the context of love.

That means I think that IDEALLY for us as Christians we should use our sexuality in the context of love.

That love hopefully exists in the marriages of heterosexual men and women.

I also believe that exists in long term, committed relationships between two men or two women.


Let's not kid ourselves - there is probably more heterosexual promiscuous sex than there is homosexual promiscuous sex - seeing as heterosexuals in the world greatly outnumber homosexuals.

And whether we like it or not pilgrimages to Lourdes, World Youth Day etc have indeed become SHAG FESTS as Father X has pointed out.

Years ago the renowned Catholic theologian Hans Kung wrote about the phenomenon of the street cleaners in Rio de Janero having to clean up masses of used condoms after World Youth Day there in 1987. 

Father X surprised me with his account of promiscuous sex happening in Lourdes in The Meadow behind the hospital by all the young men and women who were helpers on Lourdes Pilgrimages.

I know from all my years of hearing Confession in Lourdes that there is a lot of sexual promiscuity during pilgrimages there.

Years ago I discovered that many female and male escorts flock to Lourdes every year for the season and service many people there, including visiting priests.

These activities seem to take place at the top of Lourdes town - the secular area - rather than the bottom area which is the area of the grotto etc. 

I'm sure that these "services" have been used by bishops and cardinals over the years. The cases of Cardinal Keith O'Brien (Edinburgh) and Cardianal Groer (Vienna) shows us that promiscuous priests become promiscuous bishops and cardinals. 


There are very, very man promiscuous heterosexual men and women in the world.

Sexual promiscuity also has always been a feature of homosexual culture. 

There are many historical, psychological and social reasons for this.

I have always been saddened when I have spoken to gay men who told me that they have had a lot of sex but very little real love.

I remember one young gay man telling me: "I cannot feel loved unless the person claiming to love me abuses and mistreats me".

In my own life I have been accused by people of "loving like a woman" because of my need to experience intimacy in the context of "relationship", "feelings" etc.

In fact I much prefer to speak about "sexual intimacy" rather than about "having sex".

Is that not what makes us different than the other animals - the capacity for sexual intimacy - rather than for having sex or reproduction? 

In this context I wonder about Father X and many other priests - straight and gay. Is it possible that they are more in tune with "having sex" than "experiencing intimacy" or "making love"?

Present Catholic Church teaching - and doctrines like celibacy - and current seminaries - have the effect of making priests extremely emotionally and sexually immature - and many of them stay that way all their lives.

To be a good priest you need to be emotionally and sexually mature.


In Catholicism we have made the BIG MISTAKE of thinking that SEXUAL SINS are the BIGGEST SINS.

This is not true!

In my view to hurt another person in any serious way is a far bigger sin than a sexual sin.

Premeditated hurt, theft, lies etc can be bigger sins than sexual sins - as sexual sins are often driven by non-premeditated loneliness, frustration, sadness etc.

Also don't forget about the SINS OF OMISSION!

To my way of thinking God would prefer us to commit any sexual sin in preference to keeping your wealth in the bank and by omission allowing thousands of children to die of hunger and disease in places like Syria or Yemen.

A lot of what we call sexual sin is explained by things like human nature, primitive instincts, psychological realities etc.

Some years ago I worked out what I regarded as sexual sin:

Sexual sin is that which deliberately uses sexuality to hurt, use or abuse someone in anyway.

Anyway, I think it would take me a whole book to respond to Father X's piece.

This is a first, early attempt.

I'm sure readers, by their comments will expand on what I have said - and continue to agree and disagree. 


  1. "Jesus Himself has little or nothing to say about sexuality"? I think the "little" He did say though more than covers the matter.

    Some key texts: "After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable. 18 “Are you so dull?” he asked. “Don’t you see that nothing that enters a person from the outside can defile them? 19 For it doesn’t go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body.” (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)

    20 He went on: “What comes out of a person is what defiles them. 21 For it is from within, out of a person’s heart, that evil thoughts come sexual immorality, theft, murder, 22 adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. 23 All these evils come from inside and defile a person.” (Mark 7:17-23)

    “Are you still so dull?” Jesus asked them. 17 “Don’t you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? 18 But the things that come out of a person’s mouth come from the heart, and these defile them. 19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts—murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. 20 These are what defile a person; but eating with unwashed hands does not defile them.” (Matt 15:16-20).

    So among the EVIL things that come from within a person's heart, the Lord Jesus clearly identifies "sexual immorality", "lewdness", "debauchery", "adultery". These are among the "sins of the heart" that defile a person.

    Does Jesus' proscription of these vices only apply to heterosexuals? When Our Lord forbade us to lust after women, warning us that it would be better to tear out your eye and be saved with one only eye, than with two eyes go to Hell, for objectifying a woman - does anyone seriously think that His condemnation of the sin of lust applies only to heterosexuals?

    This "Father X" needs to deeply reflect and examine his heart. There is a profound disconnection in his life - and also in the lives of those other priests he claims are living a similarly sinful, dishonest and hypocritical lifestyle.

    A priest and a religious must love God with an undivided heart. There is, it would seem, at present, the gravest of disorder at the heart of priestly formation in Ireland. "A rotten tree produces rotten fruit".

    If the "fruit" of Maynooth and the Irish College in Rome are these cynical and promiscuous men, who have no regard for God's Law which is binding on ALL Christians and most particularly on those entrusted with the care of souls, then there is something very deeply amiss in the system of "formation".

    One would hope, as was reported in yesterday's comments, that Rome is aware of the deep dysfunction and is poised to take action. Root and branch reform is necessary to root out this corruption and vice.

    Furthermore, if they are going to close Maynooth, they will need to be very sure that they don't simply transplant the poisonous plants to fresh soil. It is absolutely clear that grave issues exist around those who have been in charge of "formation", in both the Irish College, Rome and Maynooth.

    "Father X", you and the "others" are playing fast and loose with that which is the Holiest of all that is holy. Stop in your tracks, examine your lives and become true priests of God. It is not too late.

    Priest observer.

  2. In considering blog criticisms of Fr X, it is difficult to assess the degree to which these relate to commentators' personal sexual prudishness per se; the duplicity of a supposedly celibate RC priest; or a muddled mixture of both.

    The range of human sexual preferences worldwide appears to be wide and diverse, but seldom openly acknowledged, admitted, or discussed: all the more so here in a previously RC church dominated and still sexually repressed conservative Ireland.

    In some cultures, presently and in the past, sexual preferences and practices are simply regarded as expressions of an instinctive and natural human appetite central to human nature and our continued existence. The degree of open acknowledgement of this varies greatly, and religious beliefs certainly greatly influence this. It has been said that Christianity is obsessed with sex! In some cultures, individuals sexual proclivities are as unremarkable as their culinary appetites, carnivore, vegan, or omnivorous.
    So is it reasonable to ask if some criticisms of Fr X's revelations derive in large part from the inherent prudishness of a constituency heavily influenced by traditional RC sexual conservatism both in the laity, and especially with regard to their expectations of the clergy?
    With respect to the apparent duplicity issue, it is said that organisational change only takes place slowly in large institutions, tending to be incremental and organic rather than sudden and spontaneous. Although 'new brooms' can sweep clean, even new chief executives like Pope Francis often encounter institutional resistance to change.Is Fr X's forthright honesty, although abhorrent to some, simply a reflection of reality, and of a developing clerical liberation from the shackles of RC conservatism, and articulation of an increasing trend?
    I will leave the inevitable religious/faith/church teachings debate to those quoting scriptural, doctrinal and magesterium interpretations on which I place no reliance.

    1. For heaven's sake, MMM, don't you yet know the difference between lust and love? Stop defending that priest with pretentious claptrap. The guy's a male whore. And he knows it. About time you did too.

  3. I don't know many lay people who would respect a promiscuous priest.

  4. The Terms sexually active gay and priest describe what is happening in the life of so called Fr X and I presume many other priests as well. The picture portrayed seems to indicate many people are not happy with this. My first reaction is that all people are sexual. Some people are sexualy active which is one expression of personality. Some sexualy active people are priests the maority of whom appear to lead a dualistic and expensive lifestyle. Why the need for Duality? Why the situation where the church seems to hold this social phenomenon in tension rather than sort it once and for all. I am also concerned as to how these lifestyles are funded. While this nonsense continues the sad thing is that true christianity and Gospel values are being ignored. Its time for all priests to admit openly who and what they are. Be upfront about finances, have the same sense of responsibility and appropriateness demanded of any right minded person. Let society judge. There has been far too much speaking in whispers and talking in circles

  5. I just find this Fr X saga very sad indeed.

  6. Agreed Sean.
    As I said earlier; "seldom openly acknowledged, admitted and discussed."

    1. In a healthy society - and the Church is a "society" everything should be open for discussion.

  7. There seems to be some vagueness about the age of Fr X, but if he is over 40 I think most people would be concerned if he is attending World Youth Day gatherings for the purpose of sex.

    1. But is would be okay if he was 38/39?

    2. Should anyone be attending World Youth Day / Lourdes for sex? And yet we hear it is a "Shag Fest". Would it not be better to cancel Shag Fests?

    3. Yes - as the Church does condemn "occasions of sin"!

    4. Historically, pilgrimage has always had this problem...of becoming a "shag fest". Geoffrey Chaucer, English author and Jack-the-lad, used it as material for satire against the Church.

      Why are people so tempted? It's the mental dissonance between pious expectations and earthy lures: temptation is always stronger when occasion demands abstinence. The more "fruit" is forbidden, the more appealing it becomes.

  8. I see the issue of his age as being an irrelevance.

  9. At least we know from your blog today Pat that he is an Armagh Priest. What action is being taken by Armagh?

    1. I do not know how you know that ???

    2. It's just when you said Pat that Fr X went to Cardinal Daly about him being bullied in the seminary. I assumed he was an Armagh Student but perhaps I assumed wrong.

    3. I can understand why you might have made that assumption but it is an assumption.

      He may / may not have been an Armagh seminarian.

      Any seminarian from any diocese might have approached the cardinal about seminary bullying - hoping he would use his influence to change it.

      Cardinal Daly was alive until 2009 so literally any seminarian from any diocese could have approached him as late as 2009 - 7 years ago.

      That could even mean that Father X was a first year seminarian in 2008 and would now be a priest of 26 or he could have been a final year seminarian in 2009 and now be a priest of 31.

      Or indeed he could have been a late vocation and be a bit older?

      I did promise Father X that I would keep him anonymous.

  10. Did not Father Ciaran Dallat - Down and Connor - go to bed in Lourdes and Pietrelcina (Padre Pio's Sanctuary with his lady "Linda" - and possible conceive their baby there?

    And he is now a SECRET CHAPLAIN to a Northern Ireland prison!

  11. Well said, +Pat. Sexual promiscuity is a part of this world that we live in, but often it can be damaging for the people involved, giving themselves in such a complete way to someone who means nothing to them, in that way the rule must apply to both heterosexuals and homosexuals, both should only be engaging in sexual acts within a loving relationship. I have little time for priests who break the celibacy rule, indeed I think the rule is unnatural, but everyone knows that priests sign up for it, so either deal with it or join an independent/Old Catholic denomination.
    Now one thing deeply disturbs me, I get the impression from the comments left that what really angered these people is less promiscuous sex and more that it is homosexual. People like to claim that scripture is clear on homosexuality, what they mean is they have never actually studied scripture, they have taken what certain denominations claim scripture means. So lets have a brief look at reality.
    Genesis 2:19-25:

    If God took Adam's rib to crest his partner, the genotype would be 44XY, ergo Eve would have been a man. Not that any rational Christian accepts the Genesis account as anything more than a myth.

    Genesis 19: 1-13:

    Nowhere in scripture does it state that the sin of Sodom was homosexuality. The Bible clearly defines the sin as greed, gluttony, a lack of hospitality, and the attempt at the ancient practice of heterosexual men gang raping other men as an emasculating action: saiah 19: 13-14; Jeremiah 23: 14; Ezekiel 16: 49; Zephaniah 2: 8-11; Luke 10: 10-13. Logically Lot who knew the men would never have attempted to offer his daughters in the place of the Angels if he had known the men to be homosexuals.

    Leviticus 18:22; 20:13:

    The only time the Bible refers to anything as an abomination is in reference to it's being at odds with the religious law, not the natural, that's why shrimp and long hair on men are referred to as abominations. Christ did say that the religious laws are no longer binding and those that adhere to them are not Christians. Leviticus being written for a patriarchical society in which men had all the rights, was condemning men bottoming as it saw it as an act of submission only fit for women. So if your going to stand by that one, your both not a Christian but also a rampant misogynist.

    2 Sam: 1-26:

    King David and Jonathan: were clearly homosexual lovers, as is made clear by stating that David loved Jonathan more than women.

    Ruth 1:14:

    Ruth and Naomi were lesbian life partners, and is said to have loved one another as Adam loved Eve.


    Jesus is proclaimed God incarnate and proceeds to denounce everything he had a problem with. Yet He never even mentions homosexuality, rather odd if it's a major sin. The argument that Jesus was a man of his time is blasphemous, it overlooks the reality that he was both God and man, his thoughts weren't limited or influenced by his time, he is beyond that.

    Acts 8: 26-38:

    Philip baptised a gay servant.

    Romans 1:26-27; 1 Cor 6:9; 1 Tim 1:9-10; 2 Tim 3:3

    St Paul makes reference to the sin of Sodom which I've already explained. He also condemns the pagan practice of Temple prostitution, the ancient practice of heterosexual gang rape and what we would refer to as being a slapped. In fact the only time the Bible he uses the word homosexual is a faulty translation from the original Greek "astorgos" which means "without family love".

    Rev 22:

    John condemns temple prostitution, "ebdelygmenois" means dogs in reference to temple prostitutes.

  12. Armagh Farmer - please let us know waht happened at WYD in Krakow that disgusted your son in relation to a young Armagh priest. Nosey. Tyrone.

    1. I understand your nosiness Tyrone.

      But perhaps it is more important for Armagh Farmer and his son to pursue this for greater reasons than nosiness?

      I would like to know if he succeeds in getting an appointment with Amy Martin.

      If not - he should not let it go!

  13. Reading the Irish times today , Pat, seems that you won't be welcome back into our fold anytime soon.

    1. Frankie says sexually active gay men not wanted in the priesthood

    2. Frankie has no jurisdiction over me :-)

    3. Do not know who Frankie is!
      Has even God got jurisdiction over you?
      Or, and it seems so at times, do you have jurisdiction over God???

  14. I still think we need more clarity on the drawing of differences between this situation and others.

    For example, a couple of months ago, attention was drawn to a young Northern priest on sabbatical. No blog was published stating exactly what the issue was, but from the context, and the comments, the general issue was obvious. Why does Father X deserve privacy but not that individual? I cannot really see the justification.

    That is just one example - I can think of others.

    1. I am sometimes in possession of information that I do not reveal on the Blog - often indeed from "victims" etc.

      This plays into what I publish and refrain from publishing.

    2. PS: And that WAS the case in the example you mentioned above.

      Work is still going on in that particular case.

    3. OK, thanks for the clarification. I would urge you to consider very carefully though, before information is published. In the Rory Coyle case, we have had allegation of extreme sexual fetishes published in the comments section, and it was very clear that there was no evidence to support that (it is not good enough to say that it is up to someone to deny a claim - the onus is on the person making the claim to prove it). While it is obviously fair that the general story was told, we do not, as you note in today's blog, need to know every detail. It is clearly the case that he should not return to ministry for quite some time (if at all). But unless a greater purpose is served by publishing information, we should be very cautious about spreading doubtful information (and even if it is true, consider whether there is a purpose in further undermining the dignity of an individual). What we do not is for all of us to become as bad as the system many of us are challenging.

      And I think that goes for all of us commentators as well.

  15. Pat, Fr X is nothing but a coward. I left Priesthood because i could be be faithful to the promises i made. That excuse for a priest is desecrating the wonderful Person of Christ. If what he has written is true, i can only say he is an absolute scumbag to keep on ministering at the Altar and to the flock. An honest priest who left.

    1. I don't think he sees himself as a coward.

      However I was talking to him today and he says all the comments on yesterday's blog have made him think a lot.

      He told me that he intends reflecting deeply on all that was said.

    2. 17.06 The issue is not about who is a scumbag but how to change a hypothetical system

    3. I assume you intended 'hypocritical' Sean, and I agree.

    4. Thanks M Yes I did. Modern technology!


    I was truly hurt and upset yesterday with most of the comments being posted here in response to my blog. I do acknowledge and accept the hurt and revulsion I caused by the contents of that blog which remain true. I sincerely apologise for any hurt or pain that I caused as I would never deliberately set out to hurt anyone.

    As a result of this I am considering my current position. Thank You. Fr X

    1. Everyone has a tragic flaw. If you can locate your own, it usually leads to redemption.

    2. Go and go now you dreamer!

  17. Dear Fr X It is not my role to condemn you nor should I wish to. The issue here is the dual identity lived by many priests and those in authority going with the flow. It is a strange world to live in and I would never want to return. There is a risk if you step out in public but I would also suggest the lid needs to be lifted on the rest of the alleged mob and their shenanigans. You will need serious support if you go this route and I would suggest a long talk with Pat is in order. I wish you well and can safely say nobody on here can afford to throw not even a pebble.

    1. God can make a silk purse out of a Scumbag's ear.

  18. My goodness Jane What a statement, neither of my parents or my husband had tragic flaws, they were more saintly than any recognised Saint.
    Yes I've committed sin, but never in my professional career.
    Fr x please expose yourself and leave, you will find a much better life outside the priesthood. Nothing is going to change in the RC church anytime soon and us faithful will be so much happier when you leave, some of us might start paying our way again
    But leaving won't be enough, you must expose all the other active gays and heterosexualS who are having affairs...if you know who they are.
    Please give all your information to Pat, he knows how to expose stuff
    God bless you, I will pray for you to do the right thing.

    1. Do you not think that Father X has done enough without EXPOSING himself !!!


  19. You know I didn't mean it in that context. Ha ha
    But yes I would want him to expose what he has been up to, being a hypocrite in this life is not right,
    I would like that gay people in a one to one relationship could be the norm, but until then we need men with integrity..and women
    Let's hope women will soon be priests too

  20. Considering your position is not good enough Fr x, just leave, go now and get out of the Priesthood. You are giving other young Priests a very bad name.

  21. Hypocrisy or promiscuity are simply 2 of many areas of sin. Every priest I have known has openly admitted to being a sinner. Granted, public exposure of the details his sins might make a priest less effective in doing his day-to-day job, but like all of us, he has the right to sin, and the right to address it with God in his own time. He doesn't have to leave the priesthood because he sins, just as we don't have to leave the church when we sin.

  22. Bishop Clifford R I P

  23. Don't forget to turn the lights off before you leave gay boy. Your past has caught up with you and you've been exposed.

  24. Eileen, Fermanagh12 December 2016 at 19:59

    Now that X is being booted out and shown the door it's probably best we hear nothing more from him on this blog.

    1. Who says he is being booted out?

    2. My friend telephoned me from Armagh to tell me about this blog yesterday. It was her who told me the Priest was being asked to leave by his Bishop. Maybe you know different.

  25. If Fr x keeps repeating his sin, which he admits to
    Then he can't receive absolution
    And is committing a sacrilege every time he says mass
    What an affront to our God

    1. I can't help but thinking that God has a lot more to think about than being affronted by a couple of lonely men taking a bit of comfort by touching eachother's bits, or whatever they do. What harm does it do anyone?

    2. Even the most private sin has a harmful affect on all men.

    3. to 21:31, what exactly do you think the harmful effect is?

    4. And of course remember, all people, all priests, all bishops, all cardinals and all popes are private sinners

    5. You posted a good question Anon @ 20:15. It goes to the heart of the matter.
      While some claim that mature understanding individuals believe that provided no duress occurs between competent consenting adults then their private sexual practice is of no concern nor harm.
      Others of contrary views claim even such private sexual behaviour is intrinsically 'harmful' but their opponents question who and how such alleged harm occurs and indeed whether it is simply the knowledge of such behaviour that "harms" individuals of over sensitive tender disposition.
      Perhaps like you they believe there's more important issues for their God to be concerned with. MMM

    6. OK.. so help me understand. It is OK for a priest to be a sinner (because we all are).
      So at what point does his sinning reach an unnaceptable level? Evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness.... and so on. It seems to me that a bit of gayness is seen by many as the most serious sin of all... what is the basis of that?

    7. I found MMM's comments very relevant and interesting with regard to posts 21.31 and 21.41 above i.e. re/whether even private sin ultimately affects others - - This is actually a huge topic and virtually impossible to reply adequately here - especially as I usually like to stay brief and succinct! All I can hope to do is point in the right direction and leave the poster to think it through for him/herself. First of all, sin--of any kind--is never entirely about oneself It is always corrosive. It starts small,maybe apparently "personal", and then spreads quietly and insidiously like a virus,eventually contaminating a whole institution, or community and finally,if unchallenged,even changing the sensitivities and attitudes of society as a whole.
      So it starts with private sin(of any kind) which we think is "nobody else's business" but the point is that right away it changes and weakens our relationship with God and with ourselves. We see ourselves differently--we lose self-esteem. We may experience guilt or shame or arrogance or selfishness. We see others through new eyes and sadly vice-versa! No man, particularly in a community setting,is an island and before long we influence others through our talk, our example etc or we eye them up as fair game thus compromising their sense of safety and entitlement to respect and privacy. They lose their sense of trust in us since they suspect our "friendship" has ulterior motives. If we are their superior they cannot confide in us and so on. An atmosphere of corrosive suspicion permeates and soon everyone is affected one way or another.
      The perpetrators damage themselves and they damage each other. They experience a whole plethora of confusing mixed feelings often at the same time, or directed towards the same person--feelings that could include temporary euphoria mixed with a sense of personal violation and an aftermath of anger or guilt--of something robbed or destroyed -Peace of mind will be lost and feelings of revenge may surface later. Yet sin can be addictive and so we repeat the process and are still unsatisfied.There is a crude hard edge to our dealings with others who perhaps by now are in the minority and they are experiencing this as a very cold house indeed. This situation can also of course, happen in wider society over many different issues (Food for thought!) As someone already pointed out,we are all sinners to some extent, but we try in humility to be aware of how we damaged ourselves, of the bad example we gave, of our effect on others and that we're not "an island " and we pick ourselves up and try again. . Cecily.

    8. Excellent comment, Cecily. Full of wisdom.

      There is no such thing as "private sin". The silly notion there is is usually held by those who know they are doing wrong, but don't want to stop, don't want to change.

      There is sometimes so much pompous and pretentious nonsense posted on this blog, especially by self-righteous dilettantes like MMM.

    9. Cecile and Anon@ 19:04.
      Could you please share with us any objective proof of your assertion concerning "private sin" allegedly "affecting " others by its corrosive effects?
      To give a context describe how when, for instance, a bachelor's semen build up finds release from sexual tension by masturbation, and in your 'world view' he thereby sins.
      In asking I do so within your conceptual/moral/religious framework for I would try to understand your rational argument even though, as I've previously made clear, as an atheist and humanist I can find no rational basis for religious beliefs.

    10. I sometimes don't know whether to take you seriously, MMM, or just to laugh at your posts.

      You want objective proof? You know as well as I that love isn't objective. Nor is hate. But both exist all the same. Or are you pretentious-enough to deny even this? If both exist without the objectivity you seek (and they do), then both have effects on others.

      Have you ever worked with people who experienced lack of love in their lives? If you have, then you'll be aware of its (as Cecily said) "corrosive effects". This is what sin is: too much love of self and not enough love of others. The personal and social effects of this can be even more startling when love turns to hate.

      Sin is a lack (or an absence) of love of others, even if the sin is "private". Of course, a pompous, God-fearing atheist like you would dismiss the very notion of sin. But not even you can dismiss the effects on others of a lack of love, or a total absence of it.

      That gross and hedonistic priest was depriving himself of the opportunity to grow in love through self-denial. And that wilful lack he was passing on to others. He was feeding his people crumbs when he could have fed them so much more.

    11. I simply asked for some objective evidence.
      I don't see any here.
      Please feel free to laugh away to your heart's content.
      And yes I did spend 40+ years working with unloved clientele in health and social services.
      But I was not asking about love or its absence. I asked about your nebulous concept you refer to as 'sin'.

    12. I did give you the evidence you sought, but you weren't listening. A man who loves himself too much is depriving others of love. Is that not simple enough for you? Is that not sufficient evidence? Christ, you're obtuse!

      As for jerking off in private, what the Hell is that but exploiting someone through sexual fantasy? There is no love involved, just personal gratification. Couldn't you have worked this out for yourself?

      "My nebulous concept of sin"? You weren't asking about love or its absence??? Jeez! What the Hell do you think sin is? Some abstract concept? Sin IS about absence of love!!! JC, give me strength!!!!

    13. Indeed, may your JC give you strength, wisdom and understanding.
      And may The Force be with you.

    14. You're being evasive. I told you what sin is. It's real, objective and, according to an earlier comment by you, you have witnessed it in your work for Health and Social Services.

      This is the reality of sin outside the theological textbook. It is not nebulous, as you can attest. Okay: don't call it "sin" if that appeals to your atheist/humanist sensibilities. But a rose by any other name...

      By the way, I acknowledge my sin against you: my aggression, anger, and pig ignorance. I apologize for it.

    15. You have not "sinned" against me my friend. I feel neither hurt nor injury nor am in anyway affected by your views contrary to my own. I entirely respect your entitlement to them.
      As Dave Allen used to say: "May your God go with you".

  26. I can understand the quote from Gandhi now when he says, "I like your Christ but I don't like your Christians".

  27. I was just curious to know after reading your blog yesterday and today, would people have been more scandalised reading all about that in a newspaper as opposed to here on this blog? Was it not better hearing the honesty of the Priest rather than second hand from some press hack. Just wondered?

  28. I have on many occasions met lovely men in the George Gay Bar whom I really liked but then found out they were current priests. My heart sank because I have always held priests in such high esteem and in my childhood most were wonderful role models for me, true examples of the kind of character that I have read as being like Christ. When I learnt that they were priests I felt very sad because it really damaged the priest reputation. I am gay and it took me a long time to reconcile who I am, with how the RC Church describes me and this resulted in me leaving the Church completely. Outside the Church i am still a good person - I decided not to pursue my desire to become a priest. I believe that Father X is very brave to speak out because i believe that about 50 % of priests are gay but say nothing but still just live a contradictory life. Fr. X speaks honestly but i do believe that he and all other sexuality active priests should leave the RC Church.

    I feel very sorry for Fr. X current turmoil. But in my opinion both Fr X and the RC church would be better if he leaves and attempts to find love with a man outside of the Church.

  29. Fr X says he is in the process of considering his position and future, maybe that decision has already been made for him by the powers that be.

  30. "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone". It seems to me that some so called Catholics and Christians are quite prepared to cast the second one as well. I suppose your idea of justice is taking the young man and throwing him from a high rise building. Remind you of anywhere else this is happening in reality.

    1. Your imagination's off the leash.

    2. Don't talk rubbish anon at 21:42. Typical OTT response from "the only gay in the village" type, with a martyr complex.

      We are talking here about an unworthy priest living a sinful and scandalous life - no one is going to throw him off a skyscraper - calm down ya big drama queen.

      If the bit of heat this "Fr X" has experienced since his "revelations", are causing him to examine his conscience and consider his position, then Praise God.

      He may yet embrace the true priesthood, make reparation for his sins and save his immortal soul. Let's hope so.

  31. None here has said they want to throw him anywhere
    What most are saying
    Leave the priesthood, as he is offending the Catholic Church
    Actively gay priests goes against the Catholic teaching
    He is committing sin every time he says a mass
    A grave sin
    Need we say more

  32. Amy needs to step up and defend his flock

  33. Can I just say that I certainly wound never ever consider 'father' x a priest. He is spawned from the very embers of hell. You are NO priest of mine, or any faithful Catholics.
    I do pray for you...