Monday, 23 January 2017

GAYS IN THE PRIESTHOOD

THE ISSUE OF GAYS IN THE PRIESTHOOD:







TODAY - LEAVING ALL PERSONALITIES TO THE SIDE - CAN WE HAVE A RATIONAL DEBATE ABOUT THE PLACE  OF GAY MEN IN THE ROMAN CATHOLIC PRIESTHOOD.

FATHER MYCHAL JUDGE

 One candidate for sainthood by acclamation is Fr Mychal Judge, chaplain to the New York Fire Department, the saint of 9/11, who died in the twin towers and was carried out, formally identified as victim 0001. Immediately, the Cardinal Archbishop of New York and other prominent Catholics began calling for his canonization. Those calls ended abruptly when it became known that he was an active member of Dignity, and identified openly as gay.



Let us firstly spell out a few "givens"

1. There have always been homosexual men in the priesthood as popes, cardinals, bishops, priests, deacons and seminarians.

2. Many of these homosexual priests were and are excellent and holy priests and were and are a tremendous asset to the Church and to the world

3. Some of these homosexual clerics were and are absolute lechers and have been guilty of every crime under God's sun.

4. God always has, still does and will always call homosexual men to the priesthood and want them to be believing, prayerful, moral, pastoral and non-sinning in so far as they are able. 

5. The celibacy law is man made - not from God - and as God said in the very first book of the Bible: "IT IS NOT GOOD FOR A MAN TO BE ALONE".

6. God gives some men, of all sexual orientations, the grace of celibacy. But this gift is rare, given to a few and bad for the majority.

7. To my mind God has absolutely no problem with a priest having a loving partner in his life - and in many cases the presence of such a person makes the priest a better priest.

8. However, currently, the Roman Catholic part of God's Church demands that all its priests, with rare exceptions, maintain celibacy.

9. It is therefore dishonest - BEARING FALSE WITNESS ( 8th commandment) - for a Roman cleric or seminarian to be living a double life - enjoying the privileges and benefits of the clerical state while living a double life by being sexually active. 

10. Such men should not enter the RC priesthood in the first place knowing that they will have this issue all their lives - or leave it when the issue of being sexually comes up.

11. There are other parts of the Christian Church that allow gay men to be non celibate that these men can join if they want to pursue priestly ministry. This is the honest way.



BUT WHAT ABOUT THE GAY CABAL - THE GAY JACK THE LADS?

Our discussion of this topic has not been launched by the issue of a gay cleric having one, discreet lover in their lives.



It has been launched by the developing presence in the Roman Catholic Church of a LAVENDER MAFIA. What are the outward signs of the lavender mafia:

1. Seminaries and dioceses being swarmed by priests and seminarians who are promiscuously and sexually active homosexuals and the forming a significant if not majority gang within the diocese or seminary.

2. This sexually active gay majority taking control of the diocese or seminary by stealth to the point where in only they, and they alone, exercise control and power - be it subtle or obvious.

3. The targeting in various ways by this gang of other priests and seminarians who are not in the gang leading to the exclusion of these others from the seminary or diocese.

4. The gradual moral and ethical deterioration among theses gangs to the point whereby the diocese or seminary almost becomes a large gay club or sauna involved in the most sordid or practices and the extinction of any spirituality, morality or ethical structure.

5. The gradual preferment of members of these gangs to positions of authority in the seminary or diocese up to an including the formators, the episcopate and Roman Curia.



6.  The efforts by these gangs to recruit only priesthood candidates according to their own mind and way of behaving and to turn away other perfectly suitable candidates.

7. The sending out from the seminary into the dioceses of members of these gangs to unleash their attentions on innocent parishioners and other people they come across personally or on internet sites. 


So we see that the problem is not simply one of the sexual orientation of one man and how he handles it - but rather the gradual spread of a whole subculture determined to become the whole culture.

This is not a "disease" of an arm. This is a disease that is totally systematic that will eventually affect the arms, the legs, the torso and the head and cause the death of the whole body.

And can I say in tacking this problem there is NO PLACE for subtle or overt HOMOPHOBIA.

Were this a "heterosexual" disease it would be just as powerful.

It is about the decay and death of a morality, a spirituality, an ethic, a living organism - that is the BODY OF CHRIST.

Its about turning something with a infinite potential for GOOD into something that welcomes, embraces, lives with and promotes EVIL.

Its about using a medicine initially created to HEAL and turning it into a WEAPON OF MASS DESTRUCTION!













172 comments:

  1. I know that not all homosexuals are promiscuous but, let's be honest, it does seem to be a prominent feature of it to the extent that when my sons were younger, I could not allow them to use the toilets in our local park because of the notorious 'goings on' in there. Dozens/hundreds of men used the toilets in a children's park to get together each week! Homosexuality too often seems to involves sex addiction and those who claim that it is equivalent to heterosexuality really aren't looking at the actual situation. I agree with the Catechism and thank God for it - it is clearly a disorder arising, I believe, usually from early male sexual seduction and/or poor father/son relationships.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The catechism does not teach that it is a disorder. The concept of 'intrinsically disordered' which the catechism does refer to, is a concept in Thomistic philosophy and scholastic philosophy which has nothing to do with your understanding of the term. A little learning is a dangerous thing evidently. I think also that unless we have expertise in biology or psychiatry, speculation on the origins of homosexuality are best left to people who actually know something about the topic, rather than passing on old wives' tales on the blog.

      Delete
    2. MourneManMichael23 January 2017 at 10:05

      An informed and sensible comment 07:53.
      MMM

      Delete
    3. Men are obsessed with sex and men are promiscuous. In sexual situations where there are only men, what would you imagine the case to be? Men regardless of sexual orientation, can be very animalistic. I work with young men and these guys are straight,always talking about sex and women and women they'd like to have sex with.

      To say gay men are worse is nonsense. Put things in context.

      Delete
    4. BJ, an honest and realistic comment. I hope homophobes here give it the attention it deserves, but I doubt it.

      Delete
  2. Arlene's on fire23 January 2017 at 07:37

    The demographic in most parishes is intriguing. Either elderly priests or newly ordained (with many of the middle aged or those ordained within the last 10-15 years "out of ministry".) Many of the younger priests are camp. In the pews it's mainly women aged 45-90, with a few husbands here and there, and some widowers. A few young mothers with their primary school children. Virtually no teenagers or men under 50. One or two devout young people who have been involved in the Latin Mass or Youth 2000. Then there are those active in the sanctuary, the lay clerics who sit on pastoral councils, attend "diocesan renewal" meetings and are extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist. If male and of a certain age they might be ordained a permanent deacon, which is clericalism, pure and simple. It conforms to the notion that serious, proper Catholics should be ordained. Also as they tend to be silver haired, it's another older man at the altar, adding to the impression given to a young man that the clergy is for those well stricken in years. Mostly gone to there reward now are the old ladies who used to be in the church a lot, praying in front of their favourite statues. As I said, an interesting demographic. Many of the older people in the congregations are of the "Spirit of Vatican II" generation, and most of their children don't go to Mass and in increasing number their grandchildren are not baptised, or if they are, not confirmed.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Since the sexual revolution in the 1960s, the structure of Christian life has changed massively. Few, if any, younger people are virgins by their early 20s.

    Bishop Pat, I am interested in your opinion on the following scenario. We have talked about the Jack the Lad types and the types with one partner. What about this scenario (which is absolutely true of almost all straight seminarians) - we have a man with homosexual orientation, who is trying to find his way in life. He has some sexual experience (but not promiscuous Jack the Lad type). Having decided it is not the life for him, and after a period of time, he ceases any sexual activity and later he applies for seminary. He is not part of a gay cabal, or known to be gay, or camp - he is applying for spiritual reasons and accepted for such. As a seminarian he is chaste, as a deacon and priest he is chaste.

    What would be your view on such a situation? It seems to me that is the situation certainly for almost all straight seminarians (outside Ireland anyway)?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is absolutely no reason why the man you describe, helped by God's grace, would not be a faithful and holy priest.

      The person's sexual orientation is not the sum total of who they are. A baptised human being is essentially a child of God.

      The major problem at present and in the recent past is seminarians living sexually promiscuous "gay" lives breaking God's Law.

      Instead of being expelled from the seminary, they are being ordained and go on to give grave scandal as priests.

      It would definitely appear that certain seminarians and younger priests are tittering at the Church behind her back, as they profess one thing and do the opposite.

      We need decent, well-balanced, properly-integrated, HOLY, men in the seminaries and being ordained. They don't have to be perfect - just decent human beings.

      Immature, sexually promiscuous, Grindr-using, Gay Bar-frequenting, hooking-up, "cruising" men, must not be accepted in seminaries, must be EXPELLED from seminaries and, UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES, should they be ordained.

      The lack of decisive action against certain deacons and seminarians in Maynooth is ASTONISHING!!!

      There is needed a clearing out of sexually promiscuous and compromised bishops, priests and seminarians. There is needed - urgently - truly holy, mature and discerning formation directors in the seminaries.

      Delete
    2. Amen to that!

      Delete
    3. Agreed. It is the capacity to live chastely NOW that is important, not the distant past.

      Delete
  4. For me gays in the priesthood is a non issue. In some ways gender balance can be over rated as well in the name as statistics. Men and women can be equally capable and equally talented to tackle any job on the planet. It should be the right Person for the right post disregarding gender sex or ethnic background-a level playing field for all. People of any sexual orientation are expected to behave in an appropriate manner in both the personal and public forums-simples

    ReplyDelete
  5. A person's sexuality is irrelevant. Is he moral and ethical? Does he have faith hope and charity? Does he look after and gently guide his little flock? Is he a man of God and prayer? These are far more important.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The church is a sea of lies. It is dysfunctional, unethical and bullying. This may have been OK for the medieval court of the middle ages but it cannot survive in the third millennium. People will notice and walk away. It is good at moralising but it is not moral. It is good at seeing the speck in the eye of the secular world but unable to see the plank in it's own. The church is a mess.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The blog Policeman is on again at 07.53. Contradicting people, rubbishing their posts and accusing people of spreading 'Old wives tales' on the blog. He is dictating what posts meets his approval or not as has been witnessed all weekend. This is turning me off reading this blog.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. MourneManMichael23 January 2017 at 10:16

      This 'ad hominem' criticism of 07:53 adds little to understanding of his/her position.
      Could you elaborate please?
      MMM

      Delete
    2. @07.53
      Calm down. It's the nature of a public formum, such as a blog, to have people express views which disagree with one another. In fact, it's a sign of an educated person to be able to do so.

      Pat, there's a logical contradiction in what you say at the top.
      God is calling gay people to the priesthood. Agreed.
      Having a close relationship with someone is healthy. Agreed.
      People in such situations should not enter/be in the RCC priesthood now. This does not follow.

      One of the ways in which change is brought about in any group is from below, or, if you prefer, from inside. So, as we have seen in the recent referendum, the presence of people in situations like this actually brings about change.

      Joining another Christian group is not the only option.

      Delete
    3. That last comment should read '@9.51'.

      Delete
    4. @09:51, I wrote the comment @07:53 but it does seem to me that if there is a blog policeman it isn't me. The simple facts are that the earlier poster is wrong in her assertion as to what the catechism teaches. Furthermore, the origins of homosexuality are obscure even to scientists who have studied the matter extensively. If you disagree with my position on either of those points, please tell us why. But if you are simply coming onto the blog for it to be an echo-chamber for your existing opinions, then it isn't very interesting. I raised the points I did because I consider them important. Why? (1) It promotes homophobia based on an irrational understanding of the scientific facts, (2) perpetuates the myth that Catholics are entitled to be homophobic based on the catechism and (3) promotes a debate about the origins of homosexuality based on little real knowledge when in my opinion the origins of homosexuality, whether inherent or as a result of socialisation, are irrelevant to the question of how we treat people today. By all means argue differently, but base it on solid evidence. Not simply because you don't like my opinion. Not every opinion is equally valid, even if we do live in post-modern times.

      Delete
    5. 09:51, so you don't like discussion. You don't like to be contradicted, to have any one 'rubbishing' your point of view.

      Then why are you here? Did you read Bishop Pat's post? He called for 'rational DEBATE', not for ideological monologue.

      O7:53 merely rose to Pat's challenge, issued to all of us. And 07:53 is right: the catechetical notion of 'intrinsically disordered' is not scientific, but philosophical. As the Catechism states of homosexuality: 'It's psychological genesis remains largely unexplained.' So even the literati of the Church aren't bold enough to lay claim to your great understanding of the subject.

      When people make unsubstantiated claims to'knowledge' that no one else possesses (and you did just that on the origin of homosexuality), then have the wit to realise that you may be challenged. And if you can't take it on the chin, like an adult, then sacrifice it for souls in Purgatory.

      Delete
  8. 10:59

    Then what do you think of the contradiction of pretending to be celibate but not being celibate?

    Is this not hypocrisy?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Since the sexual revolution in the 1960s, the structure of Christian life has changed massively. Few, if any, younger people are virgins by their early 20s.

    Bishop Pat, I am interested in your opinion on the following scenario. We have talked about the Jack the Lad types and the types with one partner. What about this scenario (which is absolutely true of almost all straight seminarians) - we have a man with homosexual orientation, who is trying to find his way in life. He has some sexual experience (but not promiscuous Jack the Lad type). Having decided it is not the life for him, and after a period of time, he ceases any sexual activity and later he applies for seminary. He is not part of a gay cabal, or known to be gay, or camp - he is applying for spiritual reasons and accepted for such. As a seminarian he is chaste, as a deacon and priest he is chaste.

    What would be your view on such a situation? It seems to me that is the situation certainly for almost all straight seminarians (outside Ireland anyway)?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have known a number of men in this situation.

      When they go into seminary Maynooth - and if they have good looks - they are sometimes propositioned by gay priests / seminarians and obviously say no. They can then become targets from the gay (s) they rejected.

      On top of that they can be quizzed by staff about their sexuality, sexual fantasies, erections, wet dreams etc and they find that very troubling / invasive.

      If they do not talk openly to staff about these things they are suspected and often expelled / pressurised into leaving.

      These are the pressures they face :-(

      Delete
    2. Thanks Bishop Pat. There is absolutely no doubt that this is the case, and it is part of the rot of the system. But do you think that such a man should go ahead if he can survive the system? My fear is that with all the negative publicity surrounding these Jack the Lads is that we might have a gay man who would be an exemplary priest, but who in his past had experimented sexually (as today, most men do). But because of these abusive seminarians and the seminary system, they might feel that the message is that they have no business putting themselves forward for priesthood and seminary, because they experimented with men of their own gender rather than with women. Whereas it seems to me that would be a big loss, and there should be no distinction between whether they are gay or straight, if (1) before they entered seminary they were able to keep celibacy for a period of time and (2) commit fully to the expectations upon them.

      Really, this Maynooth has an awful lot to answer for.

      Delete
  10. Whatever the merits or otherwise of recent blogs which seem preoccupied with gay sex.I'm tired reading it all.
    What about having a discussion / taking up the cause of Fr.Tony Flannery who celebrated his 70th Birthday yesterday with Mass.
    This man is my kind of priest/champion whose faith .determination..courage and honesty is an inspiration to us all.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Can you tell us the causes that Tony Flannery espouses? Genuine question by the way.

      Delete
    2. I don't think Tony Flannery is the folk hero people think he is. He just can't say mass in public. He can do so in private. He still has the all the material supports- the company of his brother priests, board and keep. He's riding on the wave of his notoriety being feted on junkets all over america. He comes across to me as someone who's narcissistic and petulant. He clearly disagrees with fundamental church doctrines such as the origin of the priesthood. Why doesn't he walk the walk and just quit? I don't agree with some things you say Pat but at least you have integrity. You were treated very badly by the church. They handled you atrociously. TF is not a martyr except in his own mind. A real martyr is the many priests sent to gulags in russia or prisons in china for decades as prisoners of conscience. TF is just on the fringe as far as I'm concerned. His suffering is minimal.Real suffering is in the ghettoes of our towns and cities where many people live lives of utter deprivation. His vanity has been wounded that's all. I'd prefer if he challenged his own acp about the way they tend to shield wayward priests.

      Delete
    3. I felt like jumping up and cheering when I read your comment :-)

      Tony Flannery is the founder of the ACP who supported the status quo at GAYNOOTH last summer!

      Like you say he is still being very well looked after by the Redemptorists - house, food, expenses etc.

      He travels the world making liberal sounds to the delight of LIBERAL ALL TALK NO ACTION Catholic liberals.

      I believe that he is a narcissist like Brian Darcy - who have their cake and eat it - still INSIDE the church.

      They are inside the tent dribbling / not pissing into the tent.

      Had Tony Flannery moved into a rough housing estate in Limerick, lived in a flat there and said Mass there he would be putting his money where his mouth is.

      When I was dumped 30 years ago Cahal Daly cut off all my income.

      I was quite prepared to drive a lorry from Monday to Friday and be a priest at the weekend.

      Daly told priests and people: "Don't worry. He has no money. He will be gone in 6 weeks".

      That was 30 years ago.

      Delete
    4. Is there no way you would be able to come back into the formal Church Bishop Pat? I think it would liven things up no end:-)

      Delete
    5. Do you really think they would have me :-)

      Delete
    6. Why are most priests as quiet as mice? Surely there must be many sympathetic to your views but they never speak out or identify themselves.

      Delete
    7. @13:11, well you might have to tone down a few things I guess:-) Williamson got back in for a while - so stranger things have definitely happened. Not that I am comparing you to Williamson - merely the canonical situation!

      Delete
    8. I wonder how faithful Tony Flannery has been to daily Mass all his priestly life? He's using the Mass for his own cheap ends. Sure he doesn't believe in it anyhow. The "Gospel" according to Flannery. It's the Tony Flannery Show! Did you hear him on the RTÉ news last night? "Sure what more can they do to me?", in his wheedling, mawkish, "poor wee me", nauseating prattle! Feckin eejit turns my stomach. All aul wans anyhow at his Pity Party yesterday. The Redemptorist Order is a desolate house. St Alphonsus must look down from above and weep!

      Delete
    9. Brian Darcy is an absolute fraud, me me and more me smiling on the front covers of numerous narcissistic books. Brian has much to say, readily available to the press outlets but still with his views won't leave the Priesthood. Why? Because if he took off the collar (That he seldom wears anyway) his opinion would have no meaning nor clout and therefore be treated as the 'common persons' would. I am amazed by the volume of people that actually follow him and are core supporters of his word and ministry. I've actually met him personally and to be honest between smart comments and disinterested demeanours I seen enough to settle my initial gut instinct - an absolute bluffer. Aligns himself with the rich and famous and turns up at rallys in support of disgraced businessmen. Brian's a busted flush - it's a pity the eejits that align to him couldn't catch themselves on because Brian only cares about me, me and of course - me.

      Delete
  11. He just appeals to a tiny subset of comfortable, middle Ireland who've nothing better to be worrying about. A sea of grey heads was in attendance at his mass yesterday. Living in a flat in a deprived area would do him the world of good. He'd have his state pension and rent allowance. That would open his eyes as to the lives of many thousands.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous at 11;29, re Tony Flannery - I too cheered with Bishop Pat!! !000% correct!

      Tony Flannery is NO MARTYR. He is a furiously angry and deeply narcissistic man. No time for him or his dysfunctional gather-up - ACP!!

      When Pat turned up at their conference, they shunned him!

      ACP are apologists for abuser clerics and many of them are themselves compromised with men and women.

      For that shower, its "business as usual" at Gaynooth. AWAY WITH THEM!!!

      Delete
  12. I am proud to say that I am very much so a lesbian and a big one at that living in a mans body and very comfortable with that aswell.

    DESEXUALISE is the only true way for the church. The freedom of choice to marry or be celibate is really what it comes down to. The church leaders in the Roman rite only want to keep it celibate because of the word CONTROL they make utterances that it was the way of the Lord not to be sexual (who knows no one of course).
    The bums in the pews I believe couldn't give a fiddlers., better to know that those in the "clerical state" "Religious" or other wise are
    1. Happy
    2. Truly called
    3. Feel wanted for who they are
    4. Have as much freedom to Love as anyone else

    The list could go on. I believe the bums would rather have no priests available, if it would mean that these men could live the way they want to.

    How many people clapped the late FrArney when he stood up and said I have a daughter. How many have shook Kieran Dallats hand for recognising that he is a sexual man with needs. Unfortunately now he although promoted is still segregated in his role. If I ws the Bishop he'd be back out amongst the sheep as a shepard.

    In reality a mass walkout by those who want change or support change really needs to happen. The bums have been calling out for it in their own way. Its the same as the sterile church trying to control the procreation issue by blocking use of contraception, pill condom or other.

    Its all about controlling the guilt not about the LOVE

    ReplyDelete
  13. It takes a very skilled person to drive a lorry, Pat, you would not have lasted a week!!!!!!
    As for Fr Brian Darcy, why denigrate him, it only shows up your negative side
    I always thought a lot about you, but I'm beginning to have my doubts.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Of course I would have had to train. But I love all kinds of cars and trucks and I think I would have made a good trucker :-)

      Brian Darcy is like Tony Flannery.

      They are neither IN or OUT.

      The make liberal statements but take their living off the church.

      I think no less of you for disagreeing with me.

      Why think less of me for saying what I think?

      Delete
    2. PPS: While training to be a priest - and belonging to a relatively poor family I did the following jobs at Christmas, Easter and summer:

      bar man.
      cinema usher
      cinema projectionist
      security man
      waiter
      kitchen attendant
      labourer
      domestic assistant

      I used driving a lorry as an example.

      I think that all work is dignified and would always have been happy to do any of these at any time

      Delete
    3. I just wish you were doing it from within the Church. Which would make you neither IN nor OUT. But there is a place for that, so I disagree with you there. There is a place for shades of grey - not 50, granted, but 3 or 4. Though I have no time for either pair of the characters mentioned - one is insipid and seems to have been affected by a Ledwithesque New Ageism and the other is a Cassandra aweeping and awailing - I'll leave you to work out which is which!

      Delete
  14. So where is Georgeous, is he in Ireland or Rome?
    Is he still up for ordination in the next few months?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. REDEMPTORISTS. Someone on your blog forum stated they knew at least 14 Redemptorists under 65 who are not gay. I am
      Interested in hearing those names.

      Delete
  15. I agree with you Pat about Flannety and Darcy - stop whinging and moaning, get the balls to walk away. The only people they are hurting are the other guys in their orders. As for lorry driving, you'd be great. A remarkable achievement to be here after Cackle Daly's remarks and treatment of you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you.

      As for Darcy and Flannery

      Why have they not spoken out about Maynooth?

      Why have they not spoken out about the homosexualisation of the priesthood - including the Passionists and Redemptorists?

      Why have they not condemned priests using / abusing women?

      BECAUSE - they are company men - sixpence each way men - who want to have their cake and eat it.

      Both of them could have engaged in independent ministeries

      Look at FATHER DES WILSON in Belfast who moved out of his comfortable presbytery into the Ballymurphy Estate in Belfast to live among the people - suffering injustice, poverty with them.

      Des is now 91 and still ministering in Ballymurphy.

      Delete
    2. I remember Fr Des well from when I lived and worked in social work in Belfast fifty years ago. A great priest and an inspiration to know. Great to know that he is still going strong.

      Delete
    3. Absolutely. His commitment to the intellectual tradition of the Church is also highly admirable. He isn't one of these "option for the poor" and forget everything else types - very rounded in seeing the symphony of Catholic faith.

      Delete
  16. I agree with you Pat. Frs. Darcy and Flannery cannot stop criticising the Church yet they are happy to benefit from her. Take all and give nothing back to her in return. Bite the hand that feeds them at every given opportunity. Does this make sense? They are sissies of the highest order and have not the balls to leave and be men. They just rant and rave.

    That is like a child giving out about their parents, rebelling against all the rules in the home, continually angry and fighting with them while growing up. The moment the child matures and comes of age, he/she quickly leaves home becoming independent of their parents, who they hate so much. They seek peace and find a living which makes them happy. Maybe in time, they mature and return to reunite with their parents? The Prodigal Child.

    Flannery and Darcy have not yet reached that state of maturity. They are still in the state of seminary immaturity, relying on others to house and feed them, and have never reached the maturity of a spiritual father. There only motivation is division and self-promotion. But there are many priests, nuns and religious hiding in this disfigured and deformed bandwagon of misfits. They need to come out of the darkness - get off the self-serving wagon, and come into the Light.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Darcy spends his days on BBC radio playing tunes, touring concert dressing rooms to greet the likes of Daniel, keeping in with Terry Wogan and Albert Reynolds and making sure he is at every wake, funeral, wedding, gig and party where important people and cameras are.

      I wrote this poem about him in 2002

      THE FALSE PROPHET

      Clerical garb in all the right places.
      T shirt or polo at discos and races;
      Platitudes foaming from passionless lips,
      Anaemic gestures from limp finger tips.

      As swift as a fly to freshly dropped stool,
      The false prophet swoops to the media ghoul;
      Posing at concerts and weddings and do's;
      Widows and orphans and victims he woos.

      Graveside photos consoling the grieving,
      Newsflash images of tears most deceiving;
      Emptiest sermons and smarmy old quotes,
      Not fooling Christ's sheep but only his goats.

      The "hire a priest" of every chat show,
      Willing to go where you want him to go;
      At night he's a rebel against canon law,
      By dawn at the palace he's kissing their paw.

      Tells you he loves you just as you be,
      But won't life a finger to set your heart free;
      Condemns the tough rules in his cringing style,
      While watching his back with a sly sick smile.

      Pretends he's in love with a farmer's young Mary,
      They've never had sex as he's chaste and wary;
      Others have said he's game for a hunk,
      Would that be all right for a Catholic monk?

      With an up front die-hard I'd prefer for to deal,
      Whose hallmark's conviction and fervour and zeal;
      But Trendy's so dangerous at sixpence each way,
      "Get behind me Old Satan" I hear the Lord say.

      (Pat Buckley 2002.)

      Delete
    2. Great poem Pat, another Seamus Heaney in the making lol. You forgot Darcy' s trips to Portugal to be with his other friend Cliff Richard at his Villa and Vineyard. Daniel, Cliff and Brian all together in Portugal. Of course Cliff Richard's other half is a former Priest and well documented in the Press. All boys together! Very cosy.

      Delete
  17. That analogy is fitting. Rebellious, mouthy teenagers but who still depend on their parents to meet their needs.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Flannery and Darcy act as if they're pure victims but each of them has instantaneous access to the airwaves and the media who fawn over them. Just recently Enda Kenny brought a letter from Flannery which he personally gave to the Pope about his plight. Flannery is at the heart of the establishment and why wouldn't he be with his brother practically running the fine gael party for years. Playing the victim is akin to meryl streep and all the hollywood luvvies berating donald trump for victimising them. That's how far from reality people like this can get. There's loads of former priests up and down the country who were treated poorly by the institution but we rarely hear from them. Not to mention the numberless victims of all types of abuse at clergy hands.

    ReplyDelete
  19. And frankly when you went to that ACP meeting Bishop Pat, you weren't treated very well. One might have thought that a man in a somewhat similar position vis-a-vis the hierarchy might have been extended a warm hand of friendship, even if opinions differ. I am much more orthodox in my Catholicism than you, but this whole idea that everyone has to agree on everything in order to be recognised as a brother is absurd. The ACP are liberal-fascists - agree with them on all points and all will be good.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Well thank God for this blog. It's about the only catholic outlet on these islands where disenfranchised catholics can air their grievances. the catholic media generally are just another wing of the hierarchy. the irish catholic is to the church what pravda was to the politburo.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Lol, if Pat were to seek 'resubmission' to the church
    A) his episcopacy would certainly not be recognised
    B) the church would impose such impossible conditions on him that he would be certain to withdraw and then the church would make out that it regretted he felt unable to accept their generous offer.

    ReplyDelete
  22. The Irish hierarchy just show themselves up for the cowards they are when they pick on less well known clerics than Flannery. If he didn't have such influence in the media, Flannery might have been laicised by now. Consistently defying church doctrine is serious but they've imposed few sanctions on him.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He said a public mass yesterday. 100s turned up.

      Delete
  23. The Provincial of the Redemptirists and Superior of the Passionates should be held accountable for those wayward men. there was never any substance is those prelates. Carnival catholic priests, all show.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Please add Fr Brendan Hoban to the List of attention seeking narcissists who still take the widows last few coins even though the whole church is wrong and he is right. "PLease please interview me !! I need attention""!!!!!
    Shows how really out of touch he is saying Maynooth was fine last summer."Married priests is the answer to everything".....Well done Brenny super think tank there.....you should be on dragons den with your ideas!!! Oh and dont forget his Mayo bog buddy Kevin Heagarty ........ If ye dont like it lads the Church of Ireland is crying out for priests with yer views

    ReplyDelete
  25. Tony Flannery is about as 'silenced' as Donal Trump lol. The man can't shut up. He whips up the media every now and then who adore him for his liberal credentials. He is as close to a patron saint of the media as you can get albeit apart from the one true exception of Brian Darcy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. TONY FLANNERY wants to be THE WOUNDED PROPHET

      BRIAN DARCY 24/7 Praise and woship.

      BRENDAN HOBAN wants a mitre and a partner

      Delete
  26. Perhaps I'm naive but is there an in-between these two extremes of celibate/monogamous and jack the lad cabal, and do not many gay priests inhabit it? Priests who are ideally celibate but occasionally have sex with other men, other gay priests, who find the temptations and opportunities too strong to resist. And are these priests not otherwise quietly getting on with their ministry and living their vows? I find it hard to believe in the total saint or sinner scenario painted here

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agree with that. I think the difference is that in this case it is possible to have sympathy with one who has fallen. It is not habitual, systematic or deliberate, or seeking to form a power cabal within the Church. So from my point of view, I see it as quite different. Though certainly not to be encouraged or condoned.

      Delete
  27. With all due respect to gay priests and seminarians who may not have previously known this, the Church is quite clear that individuals with same sex attraction are not called to be Priests.
    There are many other ways that they can serve God with exactly the same dignity. The current gay seminarians should do the honourable thing and step down. If they honestly believe in the Jesus and his church's teaching they will leave the seminary.
    If there is no full belief, then have the integrity and authenticity to leave the Catholic Church altogether and join the Anglicans/Church of Ireland.
    You may disagree with this, but it is what the Church officially teaches.
    Like it or not, it is what it is

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why is it then that the Church KNOWINGLY ordains actively gay men as bishops and priests ???

      Delete
    2. Dear God in Heaven! How many times must this be said?! The Church does NOT teach that gay men are prohibited from ordination: this is left to the discretion of individual bishops.

      Even if this were the teaching, it would have come principally from Popes Benedict and Francis; they are NOT the Church.

      Delete
    3. Here we go again. Another genius that has read a dicastery instruction and knows better than almost all bishops in the world as to how it should be interpreted, while in reality having zero theological training and no understanding of its context and aims, and how curial officials actually interpret the document. Their interpretative key is akin to that of the Free Presbyterians, just read it literally and out of context and be done with it. It never occurs them to think, "I wonder why Francis signed a document that some intellectual lightweights (having read it on the internet) consider to be a ban on those of a homosexual orientation, while at the same time apparently not having any problem with priests who are gay". Tiresome though. It's amazing that someone hasn't wheeled out the 2005 instruction with a faulty interpretation already - let's be thankful for these small mercies!

      Delete
    4. Well said Magna Carta - it is beyond tedious. Almost all of the world's bishops (correctly) do not implement a No Gays policies on account of its manifest injustice. There are of course some knuckle-draggers poring over discredited Freudian theory and trying to foist Freud onto the Magisterium, while the Hyperorthodox unwittingly aid and abet.

      Delete
    5. So why issue any document if 1)there really isn't an issue, 2)the bishops will ignore it and 3)only people with a doctorate in advanced hermeneutics can interpret it?
      It is obvious the Vatican has made an attempt to deny ordination to men with a "deep rooted homosexual inclination". For whatever reason bishops have turned a blind eye to a teaching which in recent times goes back to pope saint john xxiii. I might say I disagree with this but I cannot deny this is the official standard required of seminarians and priests.
      It's dishonest and snobbish to label someone who quotes the clear meaning of a church document as a fundamentalist.

      Delete
    6. Dear God in heaven!
      Here we go again!

      The facts that Magna Carta and Anonymous don't like and therefore don't exist -

      The Vatican’s Congregation for the Clergy issued a document on seminary formation which re-affirmed the ban on the admission of homosexuals to seminary.
      The Gift of the Priestly Vocation states, “If a candidate practices homosexuality or presents deep-seated homosexual tendencies, his spiritual director as well as his confessor have the duty to dissuade him in conscience from proceeding towards ordination.”
      This clarification, echoing a teaching of Pope Benedict XVI in 2005, suggests that men who experience same sex attraction at a profound level are unsuitable for ordination.
      The document goes on to explain, “Such persons find themselves in a situation that gravely hinders them from relating correctly to men and women.” Put simply, the homosexual condition inhibits fully natural relationships with people.

      Yours,
      Zerotime (aka Outraged in Tunbridge Wells)


      Delete
    7. Nuala, the document is not intended for a general audience. It is an instruction to people with advanced hermeneutics. It is a bit like saying that everyone who reads the Apocalypse is entitled to interpret it whatever way they want. They aren't.

      Think about it: why would an instruction go out using the terminology "deep seated homosexual tendencies" rather than the obvious and commonly understood usage "homosexual orientation"? An orientation is not something deep-seated; it is what it is. A tendency is a reference to the entire sexuality of the person, his masculinity; it is not a reference to their orientation. So the document is referring to those who because their homosexuality is such a dominant feature of their lives and way of thinking, that this is the prism through which they see life. This in turn affects how they see and interpret the world. We can see this very clearly in the Maynooth scandal, where the issue is not orientation - it is for those men an identity which forms a core part of how they see the world. Their orientation is not, per se, the issue. They can legitimately be said to have deep-seated homosexual tendencies. And there is much more besides. That is a brief overview of a document which has been the subject of complex debate.

      When the Church wants to rule in a Magisterial manner on a subject that is beyond doubt it does so with abundant clarity. We see this in Pope St John Paul II's infallible pronouncement barring women from the priesthood. This instruction on homosexual orientation is deliberately ambiguous. There is a reason for that, which is to allow for a latitude of interpretation according to changing circumstances.

      It might well be snobbish, but we are not Protestants, going in for private interpretations. However, it is entirely dishonest of you to claim that my point is dishonest. It is the subject of well documented theological thought. It is just not the case that the instruction is to be read in a casual manner.

      Delete
    8. Nuala, the 2005 document, signed by Pope Benedict, was his attempt to address the scandal, in the Church, of clerical paedophilia and ephebophilia (principally the latter).

      The document was and remains very much ill-informed, and deeply prejudiced, on the nature of adult homosexuality, since it reducesthis to sexual attraction involving pre-pubescent and post-pubescent males. This is a grave and dangerous injustice against gay candidates for the priesthood, and against many gay priests, who are not attracted in this way.

      There is a strong vein of hypocrisy in the document, since Pope Benedict, during his prefecture of the Congrgation for the Doctrine of the Faith, was one of those principally responsible for facilitating and enabling the kind of abuse which his document purportedly sought to remedy.

      Perhaps Benedict's motive for signing the document was not the welfare of vulnerable children in the Church (he hadn't shown much motivation of this kind before), but the assuagement of massive, personal guilt, which was deservedly his.

      Delete
    9. Yes Magna Carta, the document does display injustice, when most of us know homosexuality should not be a bar to the priesthood.

      But then as Anonymous at 20:09 points out, we're not Protestants, so candidates to the priesthood must abide by them, until the church wises up and changes them. Anything less is hypocrisy.

      Delete
    10. Thanks for your contribution Zero Time. Your digits must be quite worn out with all that intellectually exhausting cutting and pasting. One wonders why Osservatore Romano, regularly censored and scoured by the CDF, regularly permits conflicting interpretations. Ah, if only Zero Time were on hand to instruct the CDF and share with them the benefit of his piercing insights!

      Delete
    11. 'The facts', ZeroTime? What facts? Your 'facts'? Read the words again. Better, let someone else read them to you, and then parse them for you, since you've clearly not understood their meaning.

      There is NO blanket ban on admitting gay men to the priesthood; this is merely your interpretation of the phrase 'deep-seated homosexual tendencies'. This refers not to sexual orientation, but to strength of impulse to act upon those tendencies. In other words, it refers to those prudently judged highly likely to become practising homosexuals at some point.

      Delete
    12. Anonymous at 20:21

      If only we could vote for you as Pope, since you know better than the whole lot of them!

      Well done!

      Delete
    13. ZeroTime, if you are going to quote me, you might do me the favour of using the same interpretative logic as I do. To help you along, since we are not Protestants, we allow the Church to interpret its documents. The Church has clearly and demonstrably interpreted the document as permitting candidates of homosexual orientation under the defined circumstances. If you want to take another interpretation, then perhaps you might want to give up on Catholicism and look for an ecclesial community more in turn with your hermeneutic.

      Delete
    14. Anonymous at 20:32

      You have of course just reiterated that your interpretation and the Church's are the same.
      Naturally.
      I wouldn't expect anything less from you ...

      Delete
    15. Thanks for the vote of confidence ZeroTime, I do appreciate it. However, I am content merely being in full communion with the Vicar of Christ and his fellow bishops, and confident in the knowledge that both they, and I, share a common interpretation of Church instructions on the matter. It is a corporal work of mercy to instruct the ignorant, and so I am only too happy to be of service.

      Delete
    16. Anonymous at 20:36

      You forgot humility. In addition to the other virtues you claim, your display of humility gives evidence of your Full Communion with the Vicar of Christ.

      Very impressive.

      Delete
    17. I'll admit to failure on that front. Nevertheless, on a serious note, I think there is a serious danger in uninformed interpretations of key Church documents which can be profoundly prejudicial to the integrity of the Church's teaching and which require correction. We live in an age of believing that everyone is "entitled to an opinion", part of the postmodern condition. As Catholics, we submit ourselves (in a thinking manner) to the wisdom of our Holy Mother, the Church.

      Delete
    18. Zero Time at 20:19, candidates for the priesthood are not bound to abide by ANY injustice, including those dicastery instructions on admitting men to seminary.

      You accept that the 2005 document 'does display injustice, when most of us know that homosexuality should not be a bar to the priesthood'. You'll accept too, then, that Catholics have a moral obligation not to be complicit in any injustice, but to oppose it. This would not be 'hypocrisy', as you strangely declared, but an exemplary witness to truth, justice and charity. To Christ, in other words.

      Delete
    19. I agree with your overall interpretation Magna Carta, but I see it from a different angle. I have seen many of these documents coming out of Rome, most of them dealing with less emotive and less controversial issues. A hallmark of the documents is the turgid and obscure use of language, which I for one would scrap in favour of precision. They can do it when they want to as we saw in 1994 on the issue of women's ordination. But we saw the problems earlier today when one person talked about the catechism teaching that homosexuality is a disorder. This misunderstanding comes from the use of philosophical terms such as intrinsically disorder, a term whose meaning is not obvious to most. This is a prime example of the difficulties in reading documents that are written in an obscure manner. For me, it is time that the Italian influence in the Curia was scrapped, and this would in turn lead to documents which are much more readily accessible. In reality, I do not think the document is unjust when read in context, but I do think the language is profoundly unhelpful.

      Delete
    20. Magna Carta,

      I am in favour of abortion, let's say. and consider obstacles to it an injustice to women. Catholics have a moral obligation not to be complicit in any injustice, but to oppose it. In supporting abortion I consider myself an exemplary witness to truth, justice and charity. To Christ, in other words ...

      On the other hand, I suppose I could just follow the church on the matter ...

      Hmmm ... what to do?

      (I must admit, however, that I am considering defecting to the church that Anonymous at 20:47 is heading up).

      Delete
    21. We welcome all Protestants provided you make an Abjuration of Heresy:-)

      Obviously the answer here, is that you following the instruction of the Church. The question is that is the instruction of the Church?

      The whole controversy surrounding Amoris Laetitia is instructive. The issue is what is the Church teaching on the matter? If we use ZeroTime's method of interpretation, we can safely conclude that in Amoris Laetitia does not permit communion for the divorced and civilly remarried.

      If we look behind that, we can see that it was very clearly the intention of the Pope to permit this, and he did so by ambiguous footnotes. Then he affirmed the teaching of the Argentine bishops allowing communion for the remarried. Then we see now that the Maltese Bishops have said that it is permissible, and that document has been printed in Osservatore Romano, giving it a quasi-official seal of approval.

      But if we took the document at face value, we would say that Pope Francis did not intend to permit communion for the remarried.

      So we cannot simply take a surface interpretation as to what a Roman document is intending to do.

      Delete
    22. If these documents are so complicated and nuanced so we mere mortals cannot understand them then why make them public at all? Surely they should be kept secret in case crypto protestants misinterpret them.
      This notion is just neo gnosticism. It's a terrible pity we laity are permitted to read.

      Delete
    23. Anonymous at 21:17 changes the subject, of course ....

      and

      Brava, Nuala!


      Delete
    24. Playing the martyr isn't going to help, Nuala. If you have arguments bring them forward. But so far, your argument appears to be that all Church documents should be easily understandable by anyone who gives them a casual once-over. If your lawyer told you that legislation needed a thorough understanding of how the courts interpret the legislation, you would apparently argue with him that he is a secular neo-gnostic. It isn't much of an argument.

      Delete
    25. ZeroTime, while your ad hominem attacks are fun, perhaps you could engage with the point, which is that Church documents such as Amoris Laetitia and the 2005 instruction are not always to be interpreted according to a superficial reading? Or if you are unable to engage with the argument, say so. So far, you've been too intellectually lazy to engage with any of the arguments raised, so it is a bit much to expect anyone to be persuaded by your "I've read it in Hello magazine" style reasoning.

      Delete
    26. Anon. at 20:58, I agree, in principle, with your cry for clarity and precision in Church documents. I think that, certainly at times, the authors of these documents haven't a clear understanding themselves of the subjects they're pronouncing on (e.g. the 2005 document on selecting candidates for seminary) and this is reflected in the way they're written about.

      On other occasions, curial linguistic murkiness is down to vanity. But I suspect that such may, at times, be necessary, as Christ himself thought it necessary to be circumspect in his teaching...despite the obvious exasperation of his disciples.

      Sometimes understanding is not so much an exercise of human intellect, but of intellect illumined by the Holy Spirit. Not everyone today has, by choice, this capacity, any more than people did in Jesus' time. To put it idiomatically, it's a way of separating the men from the boys...spiritually speaking.

      Delete
    27. ZeroTime at 21:02, I don't 'get' your hypothetical. You clearly don't morally approve abortion, so let's stop wasting both our time.

      Delete
    28. Nuala at 21:24, learn to read between the lines.

      Delete
    29. No I wasn't whinging, crying or being burned by the power of your intellect. I was pointing out the absurdity of your view that texts don't really mean what they say. In fact they mean the complete opposite! This is obviously based on the Alice in wonderland school of theology which is probably taught in the hallowed halls of maynooth. Did they teach you manners when you were studying how to "interpret" church teaching or are you used to the laity being silenced by your sneering condescension?

      Delete
    30. For an excellent example of an ad hominem attack, please see Anonymous at 21:45.

      Meanwhile - while I appreciate your invitation to join your new little group, Anonymous, I think all the same I'll stay with Pope Benedict's church. Whilst I don't agree with his views clearly stated on homosexuality, I respect his right to write the rules.

      Delete
    31. ZeroTime at 22:44, what 'right' has Pope Benedict (or any other pope) to 'write the rules'?

      Delete
    32. The Pope has every right to teach the rules: "whatsoever you bind on earth shall be considered bound in Heaven. whatsoever you loose on earth shall be considered loosed in Heaven".

      Delete
    33. 23:16, so that's it. Settled? Er, not quite. If only life (much less ecclesiastical life) were so simple as you imagine.

      You're a salutory lesson on the danger of plucking biblical passages out of context. Aren't you aware that Jesus told Peter that he was the rock upon which he (Jesus, not Peter) would build the Church?

      Jesus, as he made clear elsewhere in the Gospel, is present in ALL of us. This isn't just about 'Peter', but about the ENTIRE Body of Christ.

      'Peter' alone has no divine entitlement to 'write any such rules'.

      Delete
    34. Nuala, you were acting the martyr because you don't have an argument. You have still not responded to a single point raised and seem to have no understanding that a minuscule proportion of those responsible for admitting men to formation agree with your opinion. I am merely pointing out to you as a factual matter that your interpretation is incorrect because you have not bothered to understand the meaning of 'deep seated homosexual tendencies'. I did not write the document and I do not interpret or implement it - I am merely relating to you how it is applied in the Church as a matter of fact, and the theological basis for that interpretation. I am sorry that no-one in the Church interprets it to mean that those of homosexual orientation do not enter the seminary, but that is how it is. Deal with it.

      ZeroTime on the other hand seems to think that if he repeats himself often enough, he will convince himself that his view based on a casual read on the net - and one not shared by bishops, including Pope Benedict, or those responsible for seminary formation - is not that which prevails in the Church. Like Nuala, he cannot grasp that his interpretation simply is not accepted. However much he would love it to be.

      Sadly, it really is a case study on the old adage that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

      Delete
    35. Magna Carta at 23:29, the words of Jesus quoted were spoken SPECIFICALLY to Peter - not to all believers. Certainly, all Christians are the the Body of Christ - but only one Christian is the Pope! Peter, indeed, is the rock upon which Jesus builds and it was to Peter ALONE that He said: "feed my lambs, feed my sheep, look after my sheep". Peter ALONE - no one else.

      Delete
  28. Some Bishops have always (and will always) part from official Church teaching - it doesn't follow that 'the Church' approves this

    ReplyDelete
  29. You are obsessed by your gay orientation Pat
    Everything you write is about gay orientation.
    These activly gay priests, including you,should not be in the rc ministry.
    And your jealousy of Brian Darcy is palpable.
    What has he done to you ?? He never mentions you...ever
    He is a good and holy man who works very hard, raises loads of money for the poor and charities, gives very inspirational talks and his books are widely read...many many people love and respect him.
    What good deeds do u do ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am not obsessed by the gay orientation.

      I am happily gay.

      But I am VERY CONCERNED about the HOMOSEXUALISATION of the church.

      Jealous of Darcy! If I was like him I would go to Switzerland to end it all :-)

      He is an out and out narcissist.

      As for his talks and books - lightweight - Religion for Dummies :-)

      Delete
    2. Ahhh. Maybe it was Darcy who was commenting @17:53 then.

      Delete
    3. I heard from those who know him that Fr. Darcy is a good man and much admired by the communities that he serves. Someone gave me one of his books and I read it and found it positive and uplifting. To describe him as a fly on a 'freshly dropped stool' is unkind and surely unworthy of a fellow Christian? Athlone Andy

      Delete
    4. Im beginning to think that some of my belived readers in here have impared vision!

      I never said he was a fly on a freshly dropped stool

      I said he was attracted to the media are flies are attracted to dung :-)

      Dah !!@

      Delete
  30. Correct me if I am wrong Bishop, did you not say sometime ago that a certain Bishop in the North advised a Cleric to be discrete in relation to a young lover. It's clearly evidence some Bishops still continue to choose to part from Church teaching!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You mean "discreet" we think - -

      Delete
    2. No I don't mean discreet. Consult the Oxford and Cambridge version of discrete. They both stem from the original Latin. What's your point? You trying to justify your non intellectual arrogance? Do you realise how pathetic you sound?

      Delete
    3. Wind your neck in and calm down! Bishop Pat used the correct word - - discreet. So the posters above at 19.25 are spot on. No need to accuse them of arrogance. Let it go.

      Delete
  31. Pat just seen this on rome reports - so wished you there to ask some questions to them - just like Vincent Brown does. It sickens me to hear the Archbishop of Armagh saying that Ireland is now seen as an example to teach the resst of the catholic church on sex abuse - is this man crazy ??? that is an embrassment and something one is not proud of - Please Pat helps us

    ReplyDelete
  32. The ACP showed its true colours when many of its prominent men said publicly that they were voting for same sex marriage in the RoI referendum. They were even saying it from their pulpits. I raised the matter with a prominent priest in one diocese about one such priest, who just answered that there was no point telling him off as it would achieve nothing.

    ReplyDelete
  33. We need solid men like Kevin Dorian and Vincent Twomey.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kevin Doran is a fool - equating being gay with having Downs Syndrome !

      Twomey has major problems - ask any member of his order.

      Delete
    2. What "major problems" - Vincent Twomey would have made an excellent bishop. Cork parish priest.

      Delete
    3. He would have ended up like Jeremiah Newman of Limerick -

      Outside the palace directing traffic!

      Delete
    4. Joke of the Day

      Delete
    5. VT says 'yaw' a lot..is that from his time in Germany or wherever he was?

      Delete
  34. Archbishop Martin Armagh says he's very worried that young women are not getting involved in the church. You can also add young men, in fact most people under 50.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But Im sure she's comforted by all the "ould women" she has around her :-)

      Delete
    2. Shouldn't that be "ould weemen"?:-)

      Delete
  35. @Pat where is yesterday's blog? Were you asked to take it down?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. NO. IT SEEMS TO HAVE DISAPPEARED!!!

      I DID NOT KNOW UNTIL I RECEIVED YOUR COMMENT!!!

      Delete
    2. What was it about

      Delete
    3. My report to the Garda on Bray alleged rape

      Delete
  36. Was it removed?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Seems to have been - without my knowledge ???

      Delete
  37. Amy at it again !!!!!!!!!! ?????????

    ReplyDelete
  38. Someone is well in with google

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Its not the first time.

      I think the enemies of the Blog have taken to some kind of cyber disruption.

      Of course they have the money ....

      Delete
    2. PS: Maybe the Vatican has shares in Google/Blogger :-)

      Delete
  39. Its gone allright, the mafia are obviously here every day!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Blog is a victim of cyber attack !

      Delete
    2. They have the money and access to the IT guys, but I'd say they just complained to google. Amazed that google is paying attention to them, why?

      Delete
  40. Second raters, rather than dealing with the problems facing the Irish church they chose to lie and manipulate church attendance figures. They are rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic! 7.37 sums up the situation perfectly!

    ReplyDelete
  41. It's too late for them now to think they can get out of this one. The knowledge is out there. People know the truth. The truth is out. It's not North Korea. It's not so easy to suppress things here, try as they might.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Hope you keep copies Pat !!!!

    ReplyDelete
  43. Are the free masons active in the Vatican too?

    ReplyDelete
  44. The story is on Queerty

    ReplyDelete
  45. What's Queerty ?

    ReplyDelete
  46. Google contacts amongst seminarians

    ReplyDelete
  47. There is a lot of misleading subjective interpretations in some comments on this blog that need to be addressed.

    The Church is quite clear that homosexual men should not be ordained.

    Someone pointed out earlier that the wording used in some Church documents of deep-seated homosexual 'tendencies' or 'inclinations' does not mean 'homosexual orientation' and therefore gay seminarians can become Priests.
    This is false. The Church is clear on this matter:

    The official Church teaching as seen in the Catechism of the Catholic Church uses 'homosexual orientation' and deep-seated homosexual 'tendencies' synonymously (CCC 2357-2359).

    Saint Pope John Paul II's document which was issued in 2005 regarding seminarians clearly points this out. And while it is careful to distinguish that homosexual tendencies are not sinful (i.e. when not acted on), it is a sign that that man is not called to the ordained Priesthood.

    Another document in 1997 approved by the Vatican and issued to all Bishops stated that defects that lead to the exclusion of men from the seminary include an effeminate manner and lack of clarity in male sexual identity (one would not even need to identify fully with a homosexual orientation to fall into this category).

    This is not new, however, as also Saint Pope John XXIII in another document in 1961 confirmed that men could not be ordained if they had homosexuality tendencies.

    This is reiterated again in the Second Vatican Council (Vatican II: Presbyterorum Ordinis) when it speaks of celibacy is to be accepted and embraced as a gift as one must renounce marriage to a human bride, in order to marry the Bride of Christ, the Church. Also in Canon law, it states that men have to renounce marriage in order to become Priests (that could only include heterosexual men - as the Church does not allow or condone 'homosexual marriage'). In another document from Blessed Pope Paul VI on seminary formation in 1965 he also speaks of renouncing the companionship of marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.

    Finally, I will end with another quote from an official Church document:
    'It would be gravely dishonest for a candidate to hide his own homosexuality in order to proceed, despite everything, towards ordination.'

    Any seminarian, who is homosexual, should do the right thing - be humble and leave seminary in order to serve Jesus in the manner he wants them to serve him
    this does not make them lesser individuals, but it means simply a different vocation

    We cannot cherry-pick what the Church teaches because it is difficult. We should aim to follow Jesus in everything he asks of us through his Church

    ReplyDelete
  48. // Convert the format name to a wide-character string.
    mbstowcs(wszFormatNameBuffer,
    szFormatNameBuffer,
    sizeof(szFormatNameBuffer));
    RpcStringFree(&pszUuid);
    }

    // Open the queue.
    QUEUEHANDLE hQueue = NULL; // Handle of the created queue
    DWORD dwAccess = MQ_SEND_ACCESS; // Access mode of the queue
    DWORD dwShareMode = MQ_DENY_NONE; // Share mode of the queue

    hr = MQOpenQueue(
    wszFormatNameBuffer, // Format name of the queue
    dwAccess, // Access mode
    dwShareMode, // Share mode
    &hQueue // OUT: Queue handle
    );
    if (FAILED(hr))
    {
    fprintf(stderr, "An error occurred in MQOpenQueue (error: 0x%x).\n",hr);
    return hr;
    }
    puts("The queue is opened to send messages.");
    return hr;

    ReplyDelete
  49. (1) It is incorrect to say that the catechism uses 'homosexual orientation' and deep-seated homosexual 'tendencies' synonymously (CCC 2357-2359)." The word "orientation" is not used. The catechism defines homosexuality as "relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex". So we are speaking of activity. So when we speak of a candidate who “hides his own homosexuality” this refers clearly to those who practice homosexuality, not those of homosexual orientation.

    (2) 2005 Instruction. Again, the term in issue is "homosexual tendencies". This does not equate to "homosexual orientation". A tendency as a propensity to act in a characteristic manner. Therefore, what is under discussion is not same sex attraction, but the degree to which a person will act upon that that desire, in other words a tendency. When we look logically at why this language is used in the Church, rather than the obvious word 'orientation', we reach the same conclusion. Historically, the Church has only ever known homosexual acts.

    (3) As regards the 1961 instruction, that instruction uses the language of "evil tendencies". You tell us that "homosexual orientation" is not in and of itself sinful. However, if we equate 'orientation' and 'tendency', then St John XXIII was saying that homosexual orientation was evil. That is clearly wrong. Again, we see a distinction between tendency and orientation in a proper reading of the documents.

    (4) Male Sexual Identity - The modern equation of male sexual identity with male sexual attraction is prevalent. S identity refers to the totality of a man's identity as a man. So it would clearly rule out someone who has gender identity issues for example. But it has no impact on masculine identity. To take your logic would be to say that a homosexual per se is less male than a heterosexual. There is no basis for that assertion. It might be true in particular cases. But if we are using the logic of 'intrinsically disordered sexuality' to make our case, then we would have to conclude that those who masturbate are not fully male, since their sexuality is intrinsically disordered.

    (5) Renunciation of Marriage. This is not of the essence of marriage, though it has a certain eschatological symbolism. However, if this argument were persuasive, and if it were intrinsic to priestly identity, then there would not be a significant number of priests (Latin and Oriental) who are married. Moreover, it is an abstraction - it is not a real renunciation. It is a renunciation in most cases of a mere theoretical possibility of marriage and family.

    It is interesting to note as well that some of those most often quoted as having forbidden men of homosexual orientation to enter seminary, are themselves widely considered by those who have come into contact with them (or even listened to a speech in Italian) not to have characteristics typically associated with overtly masculine behaviour (to put it delicately). Which is entirely unproblematic - they remain holy men and worthy Christian leaders. But perhaps something to reflect on.

    ReplyDelete
  50. For heaven's sake, just read the text of Ratzinger's letter of 1986 and the Catechism. Both clearly say that the homosexual tendency (that's the word used for orientation), as distinguished from acts, is objectively disordered.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Bit ironic don't you think, given that Ratzinger isn't what you'd call "one for the ladies'?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Right, and neither apparently was Paul VI

      Delete
    2. To quote the Bishop of an RC English diocese to his gay clergy "if they got rid of all of us they'd be no priests left"

      Delete
    3. Yep.....A church composed entirely of an intellectually stunted clique of highly repressed homosexuals fulminating about the need to prevent homosexuals joining their crew.

      Delete
  52. This is simple matter, but some people like to obscure it with semantic games. If you read the documents mentioned above (in context) you will see that it regards not simply homosexual acts but also homosexual tendencies/orientation/inclinations that prohibit a man from entering seminary - let alone be ordained

    ReplyDelete
  53. As the comment above quoted- homosexuality according to the Church not only acts but those who 'experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex'.
    Imagine a heterosexual man entering a place of formation which contained only women. This man would have to spend most of his day with them, sharing facilities such as toilets, showers, sports changing rooms, gym, etc. This would not be an appropriate place of formation in anything other than temptation.
    The Church is clear in this. Please read the documents, and don't pick and choose a line or two out of them. There are rational reasons behind why the Church teaches what it does. This includes it's prohibitation on women being Priests. The Church did not decide that homosexual men should not be Priests just arbitrarily - there are reasons.
    If one truly believes in Jesus and his church, they will follow him despite the difficult decisions - they will not hide, lie and misinterpret the teachings to suit themselves and their own agenda
    Do the right thing

    ReplyDelete
  54. No need to use ad hominems against the Popes.
    Church teaching is Church teaching.
    If you don't want to accept what the Pope and his magisterium teaches then why not do the honourable thing and join a protestant church - there is a wide variety to choose from!
    In fact if you can't find an a-la-carte menu of doctrine that suits you in one, you can create your own church. This would be very appropriate especially as you have already elected yourself arbitrator of what teachings are to be accepted or not. As for me, I'll follow the Catholic Church and all its teachings - challenging as they may be

    ReplyDelete
  55. When the men who write the documents would exclude themselves from the priesthood by their own premise and when this is an open secret among the hierarchy such documents will not be taken seriously by anyone concerned

    ReplyDelete
  56. Just pointing out that Ratzinger would never have been admitted to seminary under the 1997 document highlighted above, as it is patently obvious that his mannerism are highly effeminate. To me, it makes no difference and it is telling that you see that as ad hominem - to me it makes no difference as to his holiness.

    Your interpretation is not held by the vast majority of the world's bishops or seminary directors, so it is highly surprising that they are all wrong. You too cannot pick and choose, and put your interpretations over those of the successors of the Apostles. What you are doing is in fact Protestantism - taking a text and giving your own interpretation. You are not the arbiter in the matter. You must accept the fulness of the Catholic faith as it is taught by the bishops even when that does not accord with personal prejudices, and in this case, they teach overwhelmingly that your interpretation is wrong. It would be interesting to take your interpretative approach and apply it to your views on Amoris Laetitia - I suspect we would be hearing a different tune on interpretative approach....

    The matter is already settled in the real world by the bishops and formators so there's little point in continuing a purely theoretical discussion.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Be authentic. If you disagree with Church teaching just leave the Church. Don't try to mould the Church into your image and likeness. We already have plenty of protestant churches, I'm sure they'll have you. As for us Catholics we are different in that we have a Pope and the Magisterium (the bishops in union with him). It doesn't matter if we have seminary directors who think they know better than the Church (that did a lot of good for us didn't us!? Thanks Maynooth formators for the great lot of good you did Ireland recently). Directors or Bishops may like to pick and choose what to follow but they do not represent true Church teaching when they part from the Pope and the official teachings of the Church.
    Obviously you have serious problems with obedience - humility is the toughest virtue after all. Why not accept the teachings or leave? You'll be much better for it

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nuala, in some instances what you say will be true. However, I do not think it is true in most cases. Take for example Cardinal Dolan of New York. He is a conservative, but not an extremist. But he takes a conservative line on most matters and was made a Cardinal by Benedict. After the 2005 instruction came out, he stated emphatically that it was not a "tout court" no gays policy. The fact is that this tortured language is a recent phenomenon. Until the 1960s the Church took a pretty simple view. Homosexual acts were wrong, those who did homosexual acts were homosexuals. I think also the reason for the interpretation is that most fair minded people can see the manifest injustice of saying that a gay person in unable to be a good priest - Pope Francis in his famous comment "Who am I to judge" was talking in the specific context of gay priests, not gay people in general. That is also added to the way in which these documents are formulated. Just look at the language of Amoris Laetitia - basically Francis had performed intellectual somersaults in the language to permit communion for the divorced or remarried, but you have to take a forensic tooth comb to the document. All of this is a definite failing, I agree.

      My concern about the people who glibly say that these documents bar homosexuals is that the real agenda is a dislike of homosexuals or in many cases severely repressed homosexuality.

      All of that said, there is definitely an element of a gay mafia and this is what I see as being "deep seated tendencies". It is when the fact of same sex attraction is not incidental, but intrinsic to the person. They then gravitate towards other same sex attracted individuals, form cabals, circles of powers. They certainly existed in Rome and formed powerful circles in the Curia, it was very evident. That needs to be stamped out and rooted out. However, I think it would be grossly unfair to say that a gay man who is spiritual is part of that. Though things are the moment in Maynooth are a total disaster, there are a great many faithful and spiritual gay priests all over the world. And the fact is that without them, the Church would be in meltdown.

      On the specific interpretation of this document, most of the theological writings on it have been done by men that are not homosexual.

      Delete
    2. That reply was meant for Nuala @19:59. @19:53 isn't really worth the effort as he seems a bit slow on the uptake, bless him!

      Delete
    3. Anonymous at 20:53

      "My concern about the people who glibly say that these documents bar homosexuals is that the real agenda is a dislike of homosexuals or in many cases severely repressed homosexuality."

      Thanks Anonymous. Of course we who disagree with you must be 'glib' and homophobes. Mustn't we?

      Really appreciate that.

      Delete
    4. ZeroTime, I should have added the word "many", apologies for that. But if you believe that a literal interpretation (which I don't think is accurate anyway, but no point going over all that again) is harmful and wrong, then what do you propose is the best thing to do? I recall that you said you disagreed with the idea that a gay man could not enter seminary - is that the case?

      Seems to me you can either (1) rage about it or (2) work with people who take a broader approach. Assuming your literal interpretation was correct, it is perfectly open to Catholics to challenge it.

      Not long ago, men born to unmarried mothers were barred from the seminary. Men from parents who separated were barred. That was in the 1917 Code of Canon Law and other instructions. All of that changed and rightly so.

      But for me, better to be working with people that have the right ideas that endorsing opinions which are more usually held by homophobes and people who read a document glibly. I apologise if I offended you - since I don't know you I don't know your views. But I do think it is true of many who hold a literal interpretation.

      Delete
  58. To make things a bit less theoretical and more relevant to the subject of this blog - let's assume what you say is true.
    I suspect your information about how bishops/ seminary heads interpret church teaching is accurate.
    Perhaps the real reason they hold these views is that a large number of them are gay themselves and are trying to put the best possible spin on a very hard teaching? +pat talks about a gay mafia among seminary staff and bishops. Is there any link between this"gaying"of the priesthood and the way church documents on homosexuality are being interpreted by seminary staff and bishops?

    ReplyDelete
  59. Persevere, Bishop Pat. You'll be back!

    ReplyDelete
  60. Dear God
    The blog has disappeared again
    I was typing
    Said a prayer for you big Hank
    Hope you feel happier now
    God bless

    ReplyDelete
  61. What's going on Pat? Today's blog is gone!

    ReplyDelete
  62. Monday and Tuesday have disappeared as are also Saturday and Sunday!
    Wassup Bishop?

    ReplyDelete
  63. We will continue to attack. -Hackers Anonymous

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A bit too late. The church is happily sleep walking into oblivion all over Europe. Many people have filed it in yesterday.

      Delete
  64. It's time the Northern newspapers took hold of the stories and the blog deletions and asked some serious questions using investigative journalists. How about Spotlight or Nolan putting some focus on what's going on and the church couldn't hide then.


    When the Carryduff problem hits the news the Bishop eventually acted. ( even though the clearout there hasn't been completed yet!! )

    ReplyDelete
  65. What is going on, Bishop?
    Not


    ReplyDelete