Tuesday, 3 January 2017

MYRA HINDLEY - THE PARIAH CORPSE

MYRA HINDLEY - THE PARIAH CORPSE:



THE ENGLISH PRIEST WHO HEARD MYRA HINDLEY'S CONFESSION - WHO IS A READER OF THE BLOG - SENT ME THIS MESSAGE YESTERDAY:




"This has been on my mind for sometime. I discussed it with you Bishop Pat before on the telephone. It may be worthy of a blog, it may not. I was her Confessor once but only to establish the location of Keith Bennett's body which has never been found. I did it for his family who I had no contact with. His Mother died not knowing where he was buried which still troubles me. 

I had corresponded with Myra because she became a Catholic in Prison.  In a way I used her but to no avail. Brady was still in touch with her and basically controlling her. My family and friends in N. Ireland have never known this. She never revealed Keith Bennett's whereabouts. 

It's haunted me ever since. I was ordained only one year when I heard Myra's Confession at Highpoint in Suffolk. Suffolk is where I settled 20 years ago when I moved away from N. Ireland. This has affected me without going into any detail, it still does. She wasn't the person the media portray her as, but she was under Brady's spell until her death"

The priest sent me this exerpt from THE GUARDIAN:.


Funeral pariah
Myra Hindley was cremated last night but even in death she was so notorious that 20 local undertakers refused to handle the ceremony. So how bad is too bad to bury?
Esther Addley (The Guardian)

The coffin containing what used to be Myra Hindley was fed through a small door, heated to 1,000C, and burned until it crumbled into a small pile of ash. A couple of hours later, the small pile of ash, weighing about half a stone, was taken out through a side entrance of Cambridgeshire crematorium, loaded into a prison service van and driven off into the night. The Moors murderer, cause of so much grief and suffering in life, had finally, in death, lost all power to do any more harm.

Or so we might like to think. We do not know, for instance, which firm of funeral directors was charged with driving Hindley's body the short distance to the crematorium from the hospital where she died. That information was deemed so sensitive only a handful of senior prison service and Home Office officials were privy to it.

But according to reports the firm had to be hired by an increasingly desperate prison service from a location some 200 miles away and "somewhere in the north", after 20 funeral directors in the Bury St Edmunds area, where she died, had declined to handle the ceremony. Hindley was so noxious, it seems, that even the presence of her corpse for a few minutes in the back of one's hearse was too dangerous for comfort.

Hindley, unburied, still had the power to terrify yesterday. Local funeral directors across Suffolk - and larger, national companies - stumbled through awkward mumbles when asked whether they had been approached to manage Hindley's funeral and, if so, why they had declined. Only one, Nick Armstrong, from an independent family firm in Halesworth, Suffolk, was prepared to admit that the prison service, perhaps mindful that it might have a difficult task on its hands, had started contacting funeral companies a year ago. His firm, like the rest, said no.

"We declined as soon as we were approached, last year. Basically we didn't feel comfortable doing that, we knew that public emotions would be running quite high on this so we felt it was in our best interest to say no. It puts us in quite an awkward position to be honest, because we are here to help people at the time they need us the most."

Was it a moral decision? "Oh no, I'm not here to judge anybody. She'll be judged by someone greater than me. But everyone who has asked me this, I have put the question to them: how would they feel if it was their mother or their grandfather in the same chapel of rest or in the same hearse as Myra Hindley?"

It is not entirely clear which particular contaminatory power of Hindley's the undertakers most feared - perhaps that microscopic traces of Hindley dust might accidentally become mixed with that of future customers, or that her restless spirit might choose to loiter in the back of the hearse, or pop up from behind the catafalque during someone else's funeral. Bernard McHale, secretary of the Federation of British Cremation Authorities, insisted yesterday that every last trace of dust and ash was removed from the cremator after a ceremony, and every bit of it given to the correct relatives - even trace contamination, he stressed, was impossible.


VICTIM - KEITH BENNETT


But however dastardly an "icon of evil" is deemed to be - the room she died in is to be redecorated, and children's charities this week rushed to assure supporters that even Hindley's money was too poisonous for them to accept - when they die, like the rest of us, they need to be disposed of. The problem is that unlike other professionals who occasionally deal with society's unsavouries - such as lawyers or doctors - there is no requirement of undertakers to accept everyone's business.
"Funeral directors are entirely free to say no if they want to," says Kate Edwards, executive director of the Funeral Standards Council, one of three voluntary regulating bodies representing undertakers in this country. "In this case it would really be a commercial decision that was made by each funeral director. And they are entirely within their rights to say no."

"I can't say I blame them [the Suffolk undertakers]," says a colleague from elsewhere, who is anxious not to be named. "Would you want that on your tombstone?"

So just how bad, exactly, is too bad to bury? Would they turn down a paedophile? Or a serial killer? It seems, not for the first time, that Hindley has set new standards. "To be honest, this is really unprecedented," says Edwards. "I have never heard of this happening before."

Fred West, notes Armstrong, caused nothing like such a fuss in burial as Hindley (though West's request to be buried in his home village churchyard beside his parents was quietly altered by his children to a discreet cremation service and undisclosed disposal).

Roger Gillman, managing director of JE Gillman and Sons, voted the United Kingdom's best funeral director in 2000, says his company has buried countless notorious criminals, though he asks me not to name names ("A funeral director's job is to do funerals, not make moral judgments," he says). Is Armstrong saying, in effect, that he wouldn't have a problem burying people who had done very bad things, so long as there was no public outcry? "Um, that's about the size of it."

Needless to say, where some see problems, others see an opportunity. In Texas, where they really know their villains - and have the execution statistics to prove it - the problem of being too nasty to bury never arises. "Oh no, not at all," says Larry Fitzgerald of the state's department of criminal justice. "As a matter of fact a local funeral home, the Huntsville Funeral Home, has a contract with the state after every execution to take the body from the penitentiary. At that point the family can claim the body and make other arrangements, or in the case where there are no relatives, they will simply be buried in a state cemetery, near to the prison." With between 20 and 40 executed prisoners a year, Huntsville at present looks unlikely to go out of business. In fact the undertakers remove the bodies of every dead prisoner from each of the state's 110 penitentiaries - even those up to 400 miles away. "We make no distinction between natural causes and executions," says Fitzgerald. "It's just an inmate who has passed away."


Assuming the unknown undertaker and its unknown destination remain undisclosed, it seems that today the Hindley circus will finally grind to a halt. Her family now have the responsibility of choosing her final resting place, which they are wisely attempting to keep secret. They are reported to want to scatter her ashes to the winds. If Hindley is still poisonous, in other words, she will poison us all.

PAT SAYS:

I was very interested in this piece from the Irish / English priest who heard Myra Hindley's confession and who tried to persuade her to reveal the burial place of the dead boy.

The fact that she did not tell the priest where the dead boy was buried would lead me to question the value of her confession.

When we go to confession - or tell God we are sorry for any sin we 
need to have:




1. True sorrow for what we have done.

2. Firm purpose never to commit that sin again.

3. Be prepared to put right (in so far as we can) the wrong we have done.

4. Carry out the "penance" that we are given.

The fact that Myra Hindley DID NOT reveal the burial place of the boy victim so that his mother and family could have given him a proper burial - leads me to believe that Hindley did not fulfill part 3 of the necessary conditions of confession / forgiveness - that is putting right - in so far as we can - the wrong we have done.

Of course in the end only God can judge her - and he already has.

As for the undertakers refusing to carry out the funeral it seems to me that they were putting their business interests before their professional obligations.


As a priest I have NEVER REFUSED ABSOLUTION to anyone in my 40 years in the priesthood - and I can assure you that I have heard some horrific things in confession in Northern Ireland.

But if I was in this priest's shoes I would have made making this revelation a condition of absolution.

FATHER Z does not tell me whether he did or not?





92 comments:

  1. As far as I can remember myra did try to help find the body of Keith Bennett . She went out to Saddleworth moor but because of time and changes to the land she didn't or couldn't point out a place .

    Myra had stopped contact with ian Brady many years before her death much to his anger because he had lost control of her . We all have seen in the papers about ian bradys antics when he dusnt get his own way .
    There is no doubt that myra hindley was a evil woman and her crimes were terrible but why do we still remember her ? There's loads of other child killers out there but none have been as vilified as she was even ian Brady isn't as recognisable. Myra was in some sence a victim of her time a woman child killer . In the 60s nobody had ever imagined a woman capable of such thing even the police didn't arrest myra until they found the tape recording of the little girl pleading for her mummy

    Myra served over 30 years in prison dispite many appeals and help from people like lord Longford . Is it possible she was kept inside longer than she should have been ? . There are plenty of murders who are walking the streets who served their time .

    I'm no fan of myra hindley but I believe from what I was told by a prison officer who knew her as well as anyone did that she was sorry and genuinely repentant. Ofcourse the media would never believe that or let us believe it either . We always think of myra with the famous b+w photograph the evil peroxide blonde . Most of us wouldn't recognise the real myra she had dark brown hair and rarely wore makeup

    Myra was very ill in her last few years and suffering from dementia she was no threat to anyone but still she wasn't released on medical grounds . A English convent offered to take her in for her last month's but the home secetary refused .

    Myra died with a Anglican chaplin by her side and I believe her funeral was Anglican also . Myra flitted between Anglican catholic and atheist but officially remained Anglican .
    It is interesting that in her will she asked that her ashes be buried on Saddleworth moor and a tree planted on top . I don't know if this was carried out or not ? . Winnie Johnstone said she would find it and burn it down sadly she never found keiths body I pray she has found him in spirit

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm sorry some of your facts are incorrect. Myra spoke of her Catholic Faith only six weeks before her death and that is well documented in the Press at the time. The Catholic Prison Chaplain was with her when she died, not an Anglican as you claim.

      Delete
  2. MourneManMichael3 January 2017 at 12:08

    Agree entirely with your view Pat.
    And to the priest who heard her confession: have no regrets. You were, after all, young and inexperienced at that stage, and, in view of your comment, "She wasn't the person the media portray her as, ...." I suspect you were a tad naive too.
    I've interviewed quite a few prisoners inside the walls, and incarceration does bring into play characteristics not customarily found in that same person in the outside world.
    I suspect your feelings of regret link to the fact she didn't 'give up' where poor Keith was buried, thereby retaining the relished element of power and control quite independent of Brady's malevolent influence. But don't beat yourself up about it. You were after all dealing with someone well versed in evil.
    MMM

    ReplyDelete
  3. Surely the undertakers who refused the job would be more worried about bad publicity, trophy hunters, revenge, the required security, and so on?
    Is the person who wrote this really a priest, Pat? It feels far more like tabloid journslism.

    ReplyDelete
  4. What happened to Brendan Smith's remains?
    Wil D West

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They were buried in concrete in the monastery grounds at 4 in the morning using search lights.

      Delete
    2. They were later moved, to enable the norbertines to flog the place. it was a condition of the sale

      Delete
    3. Actually Smith is still buried at the monastery. The first sale fell through because of this, but a second sale to some American group went through. The gates, I often pass them, are usually closed these days.

      Delete
  5. Only God and Myra Hindley herself know whether she was repentant. The fact that she didn't identify the burial place of poor Keith Bennet was probably because she couldn't do so. Remember Brady took the boy out of her sight and sexually assualted him before killing him. He may then have buried the body out of her sight, too.

    If Hindley was truly repentant, then God forgave her immediately. A priest's decision to grant, or not grant, absolution here would have been meaningless as no priest can control the dispensation of divine love...and, therefore, its forgiveness.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So what did Jesus mean by telling His apostles - "those whose sins you forgive they are forgiven, those whose sins you retain they are retained" ?? It is not about the priest "control[ling]" the dispensation of Divine Love - that is not what the Church teaches. And of course God grants forgiveness apart from His priests. However, God Himself has decided the normal means of how He dispenses His love and mercy and "Go and show yourself to the priest" is integral to it. You cannot edit that out to suit your prejudices.

      Delete
    2. 1 Timothy 3 'Here is a trustworthy saying: Whoever aspires to be an overseer desires a noble task. 2 Now the overseer is to be above reproach, faithful to his wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4 He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him, and he must do so in a manner worthy of full[a] respect. 5 (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?) 6 He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil. 7 He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil’s trap.

      8 In the same way, deacons[b] are to be worthy of respect, sincere, not indulging in much wine, and not pursuing dishonest gain. 9 They must keep hold of the deep truths of the faith with a clear conscience. 10 They must first be tested; and then if there is nothing against them, let them serve as deacons.

      11 In the same way, the women[c] are to be worthy of respect, not malicious talkers but temperate and trustworthy in everything.

      12 A deacon must be faithful to his wife and must manage his children and his household well. 13 Those who have served well gain an excellent standing and great assurance in their faith in Christ Jesus.'
      1 Cor 9, 3-5. '3 This is my defense to those who sit in judgment on me. 4 Don’t we have the right to food and drink? 5 Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas?

      Are these the same priests who will be retaining or forgiving sins? Seems some parts of the bible are more equal and valid than other parts and we're not in the territory of arks, seas parting their waves or angels of death. Thyraeus.

      Delete
    3. First, 16:10, the 'Church' teaches none of these things: it is the Magisterium of the Church which does so. The Magisterium is not the Church.

      Second, only God can forgive sin. The passages you quoted cannot be taken literally as they contradict not only Jesus' confirmatory teaching when he healed the paralysed man, but practical common sense as well.

      Before Jesus healed the paralytic physically, he healed him spiritually, that is, he forgave his sins. Some objected: 'Only God can forgive sin', they said. Jesus didn't dispute this; on the contrary, he went on to prove their point by doing something which they would know only God could do: Jesus made the paralysed man walk.

      As for an instance of practical common sense, when I was in my late teens, I enjoyed f**k**g girls. When there was no opportunity to f**k them, I took the 'next best' option of j*rk**g off about them. Such wonderful times in sinful bliss! But hey! There was always the opportunity of 'blowing another load' at the end of the week by going to confession. And I did so dutifully, knowing I had all of the following week to engage again in what delighted me most. And of course, knowing I could go to confession again, to have the moral slate wiped clean by that gullible priest.

      I was not truly repentant; I was using confession to assuage not my guilt (I had absolutely none), but to assuage my fear of dying and going to Hell . That moronic priest and his stupid self-aggrandising, clericalist belief (that he himself had power to forgive sins) enabled me to f**k my way to the seventh heaven week in and week out!

      You idiot! No priest has personal power to forgive sin, since no priest has a window on a human soul. He cannot tell, therefore, whether a 'penitent' is truly, well, penitent.

      Delete
    4. Magna Carta, if we cannot interpret Jesus words to His apostles about forgiving sins literally, then how can we interpret them?

      They are pretty clear in their meaning. Was Jesus just having a bit of craic that day? Did He say "those whose sins you forgive they are forgiven......" just for something to say after He rose from the dead because He was a wee bit bored before the Ascension?

      If we can't take His words about His apostles forgiving and retaining sins literally, then why must we take His words on nonviolence, that you are always banging on about, literally?

      Furthermore- the Church does not teach that a priest has "personal power" to forgive sins. He forgives sin in the Name of the Trinity. He has no power of his own. It is in God's Name and with His authority that a priest acts in the Sacraments - ex opera operato - out of the work accomplished - by Christ Himself.

      The Church is more than the Magisterium but the Magisterium and the Church are inextricable. "He who hears you, hears me", said Jesus to His apostles.

      Delete
    5. 16:22, you actually appear to have a modicum of intelligence. a delightful difference from some commentors on this blog who display none at all.

      And here are your golden words: 'He (the priest) forgives sin in the Name (sic) of the Trinity. He has no power of his own.'

      Well, your words would be golden were it not for their obvious contradiction. Can you spot it without any help from me? No, of course you can't. (I did say you appeared to have only a modicum of intelligence.)

      A priest cannot forgive sin if (as you correctly said) he has no power to do so. Therefore you cannot and should not have said that a priest 'forgives sin in the Name (sic) of the Trinity.' Are you with me? (Sigh) Probably not.

      'The Magisterium and the Church are inextricable'? Your point is?

      Delete
    6. Sorry - typo ex OPERE operato

      Delete
    7. Well well Lady Mags - and there was me imagining you to be a vitriolic homosexualist with a tongue that would clip steel.

      And, yet, now we have this confession that you liked "f**k**g girls" in your late teens!!!

      I guess I will have to revise and update my impressions of you to hard-nosed, tough as old boots, bed-hopping lesbian! Lmbo

      Delete
    8. 17:48, oh, dear! I suppose you'll now lose interest in me since you so clearly preferred me as a 'homosexualist'.

      Delete
    9. The teaching of the Church is that God forgives sins through the priest. The priest possesses no power to do anything. Just as the Holy Spirit consecrates the Eucharist with the priest as the instrument, so also, as Jesus has Himself decided, in the Sacrament of Penance - and in all the other Sacraments, Christ Himself acts personally. But, since His Ascension into Heaven, He works through the members of His Body on earth. That is why He sent forth His Holy Spirit from Heaven. The ministerial priesthood makes the saving eternal high priesthood of Jesus Christ efficaciously present on earth until the end of time.

      Delete
    10. The Magisterium is a vital component of the Church which Christ founded and commissioned to TEACH.

      Delete
    11. No, 18:42, Christ does not, necessarily, work through human agents, including priests. Where sacramental confession is concerned, Jesus cannot forgive, through a priest, if a 'penitent' is impenitent. A priest has no way of knowing this, since he has no window on the human soul. Practically speaking, if a priest absolves an impenitent 'penitent', then the words of absolution are meaningless: they do not, and cannot, express God's forgiveness, since the 'penitent' refuses to accept it.

      The priest is simply a visible reminder of Christ in the sacrament; he does not act in loco Christi. Nor can he command Christ to act through words of absolution. What is pivotal in sacramental confession is not the priest, but the penitent, specifically, his disposition. If he is not repentant, the priest's words and gestures signify absolutely nothing.

      The theology of sacramental confession, particularly that of the priest's role in it, has been distorted by clericalism to the point where the priest has almost (if not actually) been deified. It is blasphemous.

      Delete
    12. We ALL are vital components of the Church.

      Christ did not found the Magisterium. How on Earth did you cone by this infantile idea? Produce scriptural evidence in support of your ridiculous and clericalist nonsense.

      Delete
    13. Magna Carta, the Church actually teaches that if a person in confession is unrepentant then he/she is not absolved.

      Sacramental absolution is only valid when the penitent is TRULY a penitent - genuinely contrite and with purpose of amending his/her life. That is exactly what the Church teaches.

      Jesus does NOT absolve the unrepentant of their sins and it is unthinkable that His priest would attempt to do so.

      Your arguments, Magna Carta, are purely bellicose and empty - you are looking for a scrap and you need to do a good examination of conscience yourself with a view to sincere repentance.

      As regards the Magisterium - Christ established it when He gave to Peter the keys of His Kingdom and when He told him - "whatever you bind on earth shall be considered bound in heaven ....".

      The Magisterium is the Teaching Office of Christ our Teacher Himself and it cannot be dismissed and to denigrate it is to insult Him.

      Delete
    14. And yet, these self-aggrandizing priests DO absolve impenitent 'penitents', you incorrigible, prize-winning halfwit!

      Christ established the Magisterium when he gave to Peter the keys of the kingdom? You brainless, Irish fool! Read the entire scriptural passage (Can you read?). Christ told Peter (if he said these words at all) that Peter was the rock upon which Christ (yes, CHRIST, you brain-dead Irish philistine) would build his church. No mention of 'Magisterium' hear, you clerical ass-wipe!

      Christ is in ALL of us. Therefore the Magisterium proper is the entire Body of Christ, not a few self-aggrandising, worldly old farts in Rome.

      Jesus Christ give me strength to face the intellectually brain-dead, especially if they're f**k*n' Irish!!!

      Delete
    15. Anon @ 22:28, don't waste your valuable time with that ignorant c***, Lady Maggie Gaga Carta. You will get nowhere. The stupid cow is so far up her own h*** it would take many long hours of skilled surgery to extricate her from herself. Whatever she is - she is a vitriolic wan*** - spurting poison in every post. Anyhow, you won't get through. You might as well dialogue with a lamp post. Leave the stupid bitch to her own devices and let her stew in her own toxic juices. She's not worth it. Don't cast your pearls before swine .... and all that.

      Delete
    16. Right back atcha, Mags .... right back atcha :-)

      Delete
    17. Magna Carta, I am not going to address your vile, racist and disgraceful insults - that is a matter for Bishop Buckley as moderator of this site. I do think he - or someone - should advise you to tone it down. You really are making a show of yourself.

      Only a very few priests are given insight into peoples' souls in Confession - s few of the saints.

      When a priest absolves, he does so in good faith, giving the person seeking absolution the benefit of the doubt - as is only fair and just.

      If the person asking for absolution is insincere, lacking in contrition, etc. that person invalidates absolution because they are lying.

      As regards, Peter the rock - the Church is built by Christ upon Peter AND HIS SUCCESSORS - to whom are given the keys of the Kingdom and the power to bind and loose.

      It is true that Christ is in all. However, within the Body of Christ, as St Paul explains, there are various roles and ministries. Not every is an eye, a foot, a hand, etc. Therefore, not everyone is a teacher, an apostle an evangelist. The whole Body of Christ is not the Magisterium.

      Incidentally, where, from what source, do you ascertain what you believe to be true as regards the Christian Faith? Is it what you decide yourself for yourself? Your own whim? What is your authority for authenticating what you believe about Jesus Christ, the Trinity, the Scriptures etc? How can you, personally, know that any of the "evidence" is true?

      Delete
    18. 01:40, what is my source? Scripture and reason. (You probably wouldn't be familiar with either, especially reason.)

      Delete
    19. Scripture? Really? The Scripture that you don't know which parts are to be taken literally or not? The Scriptures in which you are not sure that Jesus actually said what He said?

      And "reason"? Yes. You should yourself in here to be the epitome of reason don't you with your invectives, vicious rants and disgraceful dismissals of others?

      As I thought - you have no authoritative basis for ANYTHING Magna Carta. All of reality is subject to your own whims and caprices

      Delete
    20. 15:57, you'd rather have reality subject to YOUR whims and wishes, wouldn't you? But then, you need reason for that. And you don't have any, do you?

      Delete
  6. On an entirely different note Fr Andrea Continued is hitting the headlines for all the wrong reasons. (I am so glad that my mother is not alive to hear all this)

    ReplyDelete
  7. It's only the third day of the new year and Magna Carta is at it again! The Sacrament of Confession is certainly not a control issue or a rule but a Divine Sacramental Gift given by God to his people and administered by their Priest, on God's behalf. Absolution, through Christ's Priest, is very much acknowledged and accepted as a full healing and forgiveness of our sins on the Day of Judgement. I like to think of it as a Divine Hoover/Dyson of our soul! Jesus told St Faustina of Divine Mercy that He Himself is present in all sacramental confessions as the Priest is only a screen but given the power to absolve sins on the God of Mercy's behalf. That's holy coolness - thank God for confession! Humility is needed to participate, acknowledging our sinfulness as pride can prevent us from engaging is such a sacred opportunity to wipe clean our sins and be spiritually renewed and healed in this life - so Anon 16.10 quotes are correct and right! Sincerely yours, - an exceptional Fool!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 18:09, you are the reason colloquial lexicons will have to be revised: you are living proof that there is something worse than a halfwit...a quarter-wit!

      How can a priest absolve sin when he cannot read a penitent's true disposition? Answer, you fool! Because he cannot read this, he can be deceived, as I deceived that brainless clerical ass, week in and week out. He always gave me absolution though...despite the fact that I wasn't remotely penitent and used to laugh inwardly at the moron.

      Aaccording to your clericalist belief, I was forgiven when, in fact, I often the confessional to meet a girl whom I always ended up f**k**g!

      You idiot! You are making no sense at all. Fool!

      Delete
    2. Really Duchess, you need to go the doctor and see if you need your tablets changed.

      You used to like f**k**g girls did you? Yeah right. Pull the other one! LOL

      You are a vitriolic, irrational, vicious, truly vile, screaming and ranting hysterical queen. Off ya go and have a good old w**k for yourself - something you admit to being good at.

      I'd say, indeed, you were always busier with the "pleasures of the palm" than you ever were with any real "action" LOL

      Delete
    3. 00:17, settle yourself, dear.

      You've really got me under your skin, haven't you? Hah hah.

      Delete
    4. Hey Duchess, you are the one screaming and ranting "fool!" and "idiot" at everything that moves on here; and yet the biggest moron among the regular posters here is yourself! You dumb ass!

      Delete
  8. What's the point in confessing something if I know I'm gonna do it again
    Example ...sexual Intercourse between two adults( widowed) who for family commitments can not marry
    Sexual intercourse is considered sinful if peeps not married
    Disillusioned

    ReplyDelete
  9. This young priest heard Hindleys confession so he could find out where she hid the body....totally wrong of him
    But sure all he need to do is go to confession, be contrite, and never do the same again
    He has my forgiveness too xx

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I actually commend him for what he tried to do. What did you do to help a grieving Mother find the body of her Son? A grieving Mother who was never able to afford him a Christian burial.

      Delete
  10. So where does the sin virus reside? In the act itself or in the mentality that causes the act to happen. Can anyone trace some content from the pre Vatican pennatentaries. It would make interesting reading. Penances were dished out to fit the sins confessed

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You want an interesting read? Take a look at the ancient, Irish Book of Penitentials. These guys had penance down to a fine moral paranoia. Example: forty days fasting on bread and water for having a 'wet' dream.

      No wonder Irish Catholics are so f**k*d up. I've me a few on this blog today. So f**k*d up in fact that one of them even glories in the title 'exceptional Fool!'.

      You couldn't make this stuff up, I swear.

      Delete
    2. Why do you keep using foul language on here? Can we not have a debate without the expletives. Whoever you are Magna Carta you seem a very aggressive and angry person.

      Delete
    3. 21:31, no, I'm not a 'very aggressive and angry person'. So p*ss off!!

      Delete
    4. You've just proved my very point Magna Carta. Thanks.

      Delete
    5. 22:30, look up the word 'humour' in the dictionary, and then look up the word 'idiot'. When you've done both, look in the mirror.

      Delete
    6. 22:30, sweet Jesus. Look up the word 'humour' and , then, the word 'idiot'. When you're done, look in your bathroom mirror until the light dawns.

      You'll be there quite a while. So be patient.

      Delete
    7. I tried to look for some of these old penance books on line but no joy. At least now I know they do exist. This deep rooted mentality goes back a long way

      Delete
    8. Sean, the Irish Penitentials refers to lists of sins and their punishments. The earliest list dates from the sixth century; its very first sin and punishment suggests the kind of activity that engaged the early Irish:

      'A boy who communicates in the sacrament
      although he has sinned with a beast shall
      do penance for a hundred days on bread and
      water.'

      Bestiality wasn't the only serious moral failing, according to the Penitentials; gluttony, too, was a staple vice:

      'He who vomits the host because of greediness,
      forty days of penance...If he ejects it into
      the fire, he shall sing one hundred psalms...
      If a dog laps up his vomit, he who has
      vomited shall do penance for one hundred
      days.'

      I misinformed the blog about nocturnal emission. On this point the Penitentials actually state:

      'He whose sperm flows whilst he is sleeping
      in church shall do penance for three days.'

      Delete
    9. Sean, if you wish to learn more about sin and penance in early Irish monasticism, I recommend 'The Irish Penitentials' (1963) by Ludwig Beiler (ed)

      Delete
    10. The most recent book is - the irish penitentials by none other than our great friend dr.mgr hugh connolly formerly of maynooth college. Published by four courts press sometime in the 1990s.

      Delete
    11. Nuala, I do NOT recommend any book by that morally and intellectually compromised jackass, Hugh Conolly.

      Delete
  11. A good article Pat, enjoyed. Good too see the spiritual side of you rather than the same rhetoric, change is good. Well done.

    ReplyDelete
  12. 21.31
    Magna Carta is a total waste of time.
    He is arrogant, a self-admitted sociopath and beyond repair.
    Best way to deal with him is to ignore him.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ha ha ha. Thanks for the laugh. And for the contradiction in terms. Er, you didn't follow your own advice: you didn't ignore me...hence your post. Hah! Hah!

      Delete
  13. I would recommend, Magna Carta, that you re-read your own 'stuff' in your recent blogs.
    If you have any cop-on, any wit or intelligence left, you will surely recognise what a total pin-head you are. You were absent for a while on this site - your absence was generally welcomed!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're envious of me, aren't you? Specifically, of my intelligence and erudition? But you don't know what 'erudition' means, do you?

      Dear God! I'm surrounded by intellectual pygmies? And you're the shortest of the bunch. Hah! Hah!

      Delete
    2. Here duchess, c'mere a want ye .... fack away aff! LOL

      Delete
    3. 22:43, my! Your command of the Queen's English does you enormous credit. (You do understand irony, don't you? No, you probably don't and will take my remark as a compliment. Sigh)

      Delete
    4. By the way, 22:43, it's 'faic', not 'fack'.

      Delete
    5. Na missus- where I live it's very definitely FACK! Stick yer Queen's English up yer h***! LOL

      Delete
    6. Where you live, dearie, is the land of 'Moronicity'. (This has gone right over your little head, hasn't it. Sigh again)

      Delete
    7. Let me assure you, Duchess, not a single word that your tiny and inflamed wee brain concocts, goes over my "little head". I have your number missus ;-)

      Delete
    8. 00:27, Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

      Delete
  14. If Magna Carta was a customer in my pub I would bar him for life!
    Enough morons coming in here without Him.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why would I even consider going near your dingy pub, jackass? Wait! You're Irish, aren't you? Would explain your lack of intelligence.

      Delete
  15. Is innuendo the Italian word for suppository?5 January 2017 at 08:30

    I'd suggest strongly that Maggie Carta has had as many girlfriends as Amy apparently had. Screaming queenery such as his gives us masculine gay men a bad name.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 08:30, have I upset you, pet?

      'Masculine gay men'? That has to be the queerest oxymoron I've ever come across. Ha ha

      Delete
    2. Look folks, let's not be too harsh with poor old Dame Magna Carta.

      Her latest tirades of racist anti-Irish abuse are just another symptom of her deep-seated self-loathing - a bit like her fantasies of being a promiscuous heterosexual male in his late teens and all those maidens Stud Carta bedded.

      Can you not all see that the old bird is in existential pain? She needs our prayers and sympathies - not our scorn and opprobrium.

      Indeed, should someone not undertake to locate the wounded old Fraulein? We have some clues: former Maynooth seminarian; she once reported a fellow student for being overly interested in young boys (fair play to her); unmarried and childless, she likely lives in Belfast; she may have gone over to High Anglicanism having been hurt by her experiences in Maynooth, as she still believes in Purgatory for example.

      The Duchess needs help - someone to call round and make her a wee cup of tea, take her out to McDonald's for a Happy Meal, bring her a nice bunch of flowers.

      Maybe Fr X and his teenage boyfriend could treat her to a shopping spree in the Victoria Centre and then a cheeky wee Nandos?

      Anyhow, let us pray for the Dame's healing and treat her sectarian and racist tirades with the same understanding and compassion one would show a spinster aunt, whose hemorrhoids are playing up something fierce, putting her in a frightful mood altogether.

      Delete
    3. 11:21, you've been scrolling through old blogs,haven't you? Trying to pin me down...biographically speaking?! (Clarification was necessary here. I didn't want to excite the inordinate number of gays that post on this blog. You included.) Fancied yourself as a Sherlock Holmes? Well, it was a worthy try, but someone who loves you enough to be honest should have told you there is a difference between you and the legendary Holmes: he was highly intelligent. You don't fit the intellectual bill, I'm afraid...And it shows in your 'wannabe' profile of me: way off the mark.

      You're Irish, aren't you?

      Delete
    4. Ah! I've got it! Maggie Carta aka Julian Clary!! Lol

      Delete
    5. Whatever Duchess.

      It's just that I hate to think of you, a sad and bitter old dolly bird, up in some lonely and drafty Garrett, crouched over a laptop, tapping out very cross messages to Pat Buckley's blog.

      What you need is group hugs, from big Irish labourer, lads-down-the-pub, types, to help you get over the many hurts of your past.

      So, folks, the best clue we have is that the Duchess was once upon a time in Maynooth within the last 30 years. She reported a fellow student for suspicious leanings (fair play to her), so that might ring a bell somewhere for someone.

      Our beautiful wee Ireland is really just one big village. So come on all you clerics and ex-clerics out there. Any clues as to who the ornery old snapping turtle could be?

      Who will be the chivalrous knight, brave enough to scale the turret and breach the Garrett, sweeping Lady Magna Carta off her feet and, throwing her over his shoulder, carry her off to a life of gratification and bliss?

      Delete
    6. 14:15, you're in love with me, aren't you? Don't be embarrassed! I'm in love with me, too.

      YOU wish you were that 'chivalrous knight', don't you? Again, don't be embarrassed! I'm worth the rescue from that 'Garret' you're fixated upon.

      Are you man enough to rescue me from it? Well, manliness isn't the issue here; intelligence is. And, sadly, you have none.

      Delete
    7. 12:34, back to the drawing board for you, princess. But you don't know what 'drawing board' means, do you? Why would you? You're Irish. Hah! Hah!

      Delete
    8. In love with YOU, Mags???? Ye must be feckin' joking, duchess!

      Dream on psycho-bitch.

      Hah! Hah! Hah! Hah! Hah! ........... Hah!

      That you are "in love" with yourself though - that is self-evident!

      Delete
    9. 15:22, 'prunes' to you, too, cupcake.

      Delete
  16. I would earnestly beseech Bishop Buckley to 'bar' this crude creature, 'Magna Carta' from this site.
    He has nothing to contribute except pathetic self praise.
    I am sure that the Bishop realises that zero plus zero equals zero. In Maggie's case this would confound mathematicians - zero minus zero = oblivion!
    Bishop, clobber this idiot - bar him and put us out of this misery.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 14:19' what? You don't like me? Why ever not?

      Delete
    2. Magma Carta and Wonky Willy have the same sordid low-life mentality.
      Things have reached an intolerable pitch, Bishop!
      Block, bar, get rid of these intolerable creatures - please. They have nothing to offer!

      Delete
    3. 20:00, I have much to offer. You may not like it, but that doesn't mean it should be barred.

      You remind me of the censors in the Church, past and present. Any voice which strikes a discordant note in YOUR ear, you would immediately silence...if you could.

      Learn to mature, to handle difference with more than childish petulance. Don't be like 'Cackle' Daly and throw your rattle out of the pram every time someone challenges you.

      Have a little more self-respect than that.

      Delete
    4. "Childish petulance"???? Coming from you, Duchess?? You invented it. You are a wicked bitch. Show some self-respect yourself, you ignorant f**k wit!

      Delete
    5. 23:47, God!! I can feel your raw, untamed passion for me.

      You dream about me, don't you? Why wouldn't you? I'm worth the dream.

      Delete
  17. It is your general attitude which appals me.
    Bragging about your sacrilgious attitude to confession, your language which is not improved by inserting asterisks, your low life attitude to everything disgusts me - and quite clearly others.
    Every time you write in this blog I can sense emanating from your 'contributions ' the very essence of putrescence. You give off a foul smell all the more vile since it is spiritual rather than physical!

    Do the world a favour and disappear - permanently this time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Magna Carta is a nasty and vicious piece of work, with a self-righteous arrogance and haughtiness that is truly monumental.

      His effeminate tirades are hideous and the utter disrespect and contempt this creature shows towards other posters is shocking.

      I couldn't care less whether he posts on this blog or not - that is a matter for Pat Buckley; but, at least, he should be told to keep a respectful tongue in his head.

      If he was a son of mine he would get a good kick up the arse.

      Delete
    2. 23:40, you're clearly over-wrought, and I'm very concerned for your mental welfare.

      To the wider world, you are f**k**g crazy. But to me, your compassionate sibling, you are, well, f**k**g crazy! (Honesty really is the best policy.)

      Delete
    3. 23:40, what, dear, is 'sacriligious' (actually, it's 'sacrilEgious', sweetheart) about my attitude to sacramental confession? Oh, dear. You're Irish, too. Aren't you? Hah! Hah! Hah! Hah!

      Delete
    4. Maggie Magma
      I do know how to spell sacrilegious - I did not write sacrilgious but left out an E.
      If you have to reply in your usual fashion could you please omit the Hah, Hahs,
      You sound like an inebriated donkey.

      Delete
    5. 11:18, I'm still waiting for you to tell me what is 'sacrilgious' about my attitude to sacramental confession? (No 'Hah-hahs' this time. See?)

      Delete
    6. All you are doing, Mags, is revealing more of yourself as a f**king basket case. Yes, I definitely think inebriation is a factor in Maggie's postings. The Duchess is defo a lush. She's slurpin' the aul pink gin as she types LOL

      Delete
    7. No, 12:33, I'm not revealing myself as a '******* basket case' by asking why someone (you?) considered my attitude to sacramental confession 'sacrilgious'. My question is perfectly understandable and rational, given that I personally do not believe my attitude to this 'sacrilgious' in any way.

      I 'asterisked' one word of the phrase I quoted from your post because I disapprove of swearing, especially in public forums like this blog. Doing so is morally irresponsible and sets a poor example.

      No, I don't drink 'pink gin' (not even 'aul' pink gin). How does it taste?

      Delete
    8. Hey Maggie - fack away aff and give wir heads peace or wull send Big Lily over til slap yer bake for ya so we wull! Pmsl. :-D

      Delete
    9. Please, not Big Lily. I'll face ANYONE, but Big Lil!

      I'm orf!!

      Delete