Saturday, 15 April 2017

Marriages: Same-sex
Average age of heterosexual couple rises with bride’s age at 33.8 and groom at 35.7 Roman Catholic ceremony most popular choice among opposite-sex couples
·         The Irish Times SARAH BURNS

Same-sex marriages accounted for almost one in 20 (4.7 per cent) of all marriages which took place in 2016.

According to the Central Statistics Office, there were 606 male unions and 450 female unions in 2016. Last year is the first 12-month period for which same-sex marriage statistics are available. The same-sex marriage referendum was passed on May 23rd, 2015, with 62 per cent in favour and 38 per cent against. Same-sex marriage legislation came into effect on November 16th, 2015.

The age of marrying heterosexual couples continues to rise as the average age of grooms last year was 35.7 years while the average bride was 33.8 years.



This compares to 29 for a groom in 1966 and 25.7 years for a bride. The average age of men entering into same sex-marriages was 40.5 years in 2016 while for women it was 41 years.

The CSO marriage and civil partnership figures for 2016 show there were 22,626 marriages and civil partnerships last year, with religious ceremonies accounting for 64.8 per cent of all marriages.

Carol Anne Hennessy, statistician at the CSO, said the majority of same-sex couples (850) opted for a civil marriage ceremony while 97 couples chose a humanist ceremony and 73 couples had a Spiritualist Union of Ireland ceremony.

Different ceremonies

The Roman Catholic ceremony was the most popular choice among heterosexual couples with 56 per cent (12,140) opting for the traditional event. However second most popular was civil ceremonies, for which more than a quarter of heterosexual couples opted (5,588).

For heterosexual marriages, a humanist ceremony was the choice of 6.6 per cent (1,437) of brides and grooms while 965 (4.5 per cent) couples opted for the Spiritual Union of Ireland ceremony. The CSO also found that the summer months proved the most popular for heterosexual couples.

Popular

“The warmer months of July and August were the most popular for weddings while the cooler months of January and February were the least popular,” Ms Hennessy said. “Friday and Saturdays continue to be the most popular days to tie the knot, while Sundays and Mondays remain the least popular days of the week to marry.”

Saturday, July 30th, was the most popular date for heterosexual couples to marry with 272 (1.3 per cent) marriages taking place on that day. This was followed by Saturday, June 4th, when 259 (1.2 per cent) marriages occurred.

New Year’s Eve was the third most popular date with 249 (1.2 per cent) marriage celebrations on that day.


One-third of all same-sex marriages were on a Friday, with Sunday proving the least popular for both same-sex and heterosexual couples. Friday, July 29th, saw the highest number of same-sex marriages with 17 (1.6 per cent) occurring on that day. This was followed by Friday, July 15th, when 13 (1.2 per cent) took place. There were 2,444 marriages involving at least one divorced person in 2016, including 552 where both parties were divorced.

PAT SAYS:

These are fascinating figured. 5% of all Irish weddings are gay weddings!

How Ireland is changing in the sense of becoming a modern SECULAR nation.

Also a sign of the RCC losing its grip over Irish constitution, law, social practice etc.

This is the direction we need to go in.

A secular, pluralist, modern, European democracy.

Religious freedom BUT no religious domination.

The end of "Home Rule being Rome Rule.

115 comments:

  1. MourneManMichael15 April 2017 at 00:21

    In a word: "Agreed."
    I think it's welcome that we increasingly accomodate the cultural, tribal and aspirational traditions of our origins outside the shackles of RC restrictive governance.
    MMM

    ReplyDelete
  2. Pat, not so sure I would get to excited regarding the rise in gay weddings yet. Did the stats take into account those who were married in a civil partnership before? I attended a number if my friends weddings last year who had been married before. It was a very expensive year, but worth every penny.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The biggest issue I believe is the stranglehold the churches put on marriages that should never have happened in the first place.

    The processes of annulment has fences that are almost impossible to jump over depending on what diocese the couple live in.

    For example the diocese of Down and Conor are renowned for being hard hearted and denying as many annullments as possible.

    The Pope says he wanted things made easier yet it appears again to be a call on deaf ears. But lets not forget + Patrick any union other than between a man and woman will never be recognised by many churches let alone Rome.

    I would still you love you to verify if possible if that nice sounding man I was asking you about has a lesbian sister or not that is in civil union. I'm all behind her and her union of course but not the Pharisee brother. I've managed to get only one source to validate it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Im afraid I do not know the answer to that?

      Maybe some of our readers could help?

      Does the chancellor of Down and Connor - Fr Eugene O Hagan have a lesbian sister and did he recently attend her civik partnership?

      This is what BH wants to know?

      Delete
  4. Pat blessings at Easter to you and yours.
    Some bishops are more open to accepting same sex than others. I know of some dioceses where blessings are offered - for a while now there has been a hint that some bishops are compromised - I am wondering if any of these are

    ReplyDelete
  5. I wouldn't get too excited by the figures, the novelty of 'gay marriage' in Ireland will account for a disproportionate number. I'd wait for a couple of years to see the longer term figures.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Dream on 09:53 there's not a single bishop in Ireland or the UK that will allow a blessing of any kind for a same sex union. Sadly there are individual priests who are mavericks and see themselves as owners of the Sacraments rather than custodians for the universal church and some of these idiots offer blessings, and in one case I know of 'weddings'.Such ceremonies are totally unlawful and invalid and these priests place themselves outside the church.
    Same sex unions can never be recognised as marriage by the church no more than a man who has his penis hacked off in an act of surgical mutilation can be recognised as a woman, some things are as they are!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. At last someone with a sound mind and a theological orthodoxy. We've had too much makey-up nonsense in recent times. Bishop Pat himself is the king of Makey-up leading people astray.

      Delete
    2. The important theological point for Catholics is that the lifelong heterosexual marriage of the Baptised is a Sacrament.

      Priests are still asked to bless cars and cows and God knows what. Why wouldn't they bless a gay couple, if only its not a blessing all dolled up to look like a Church wedding?

      Delete
    3. MourneManMichael15 April 2017 at 13:28

      Would it be reasonable to say that theological orthodoxy appears to regard many issues as fixed, absolute, and immutable? If this is so, this notion is heavily reliant on our creationist origins within a relatively short time frame.
      Such thinking does not sit well with the incontrovertible evidence for evolution, and the reality of ongoing change.
      So, Anon @ 10:38, perhaps like much else, 'theological orthodoxy' is relative?
      MMM

      Delete
    4. 'Some things are as they are'? This statement has many variants in history 10:30, most of them the ideological mantras of intellectual sticks-in-the-mud. And it would cost not a few of them their heads.

      It is what the Pharisees and most of the Sanhedrin thought about Judaism. And look where that led; we commemorate it this Holy Week.

      Be very careful of reinforcing verbal bulwarks with dogma: it can suggest psychological insecurity and a credal tribalism unknown to Jesus.

      Pope Francis criticised priests in South America for exhibiting the discriminatory effects of just such an attitude, when these priests refused unmarried mothers baptism of their children.

      No one 'owns' the sacraments. The word 'sacrament' comes from the Latin 'sacramentum', which means 'sign of the sacred'. But 'sign' here is not the 'sacred' itself. No; that is God's grace (God himself) and he gives himself to all and makes his home in all wherever love is present.

      Never think he is dispensed at your, or the 'Church's', favour.

      Delete
    5. 12:22, you make an excellent point.

      Delete
    6. So speaks the expert on everything.

      Delete
    7. Magna Carta with Pat Buckley as Pope of the Church of the Makey-up faith you could be his Cardinal. The Sacraments are dispensed by the Church like it or not. Again the problem you cite in S.America re-enforces my point that Priests are mere custodians and must administer the Sacraments according to the mind of the church not personal whim.

      Delete
    8. Actually 13:53, the point Francis was making, not directly but indirectly, is that no one owns the sacraments: not those priests, not the Church, nor anyone else. Because no one owns God. It is such a simple and obvious point that even you should have grasped it.

      Delete
    9. My Lord Cardinal Makey-up,
      Your attempt at argumentum ad hominum clearly demonstrates the paucity of you argument.
      The Church defined and codified the sacraments inspired by the Holy Spirit, she alone can regulate their administration.

      Delete
    10. If Catholicism is man-made and there is no doubt that it is when you consider how it fed off hate for centuries - Protestants were only "forgiven" relatively recently then the sacraments are not sacraments but placeboes and DO belong to man.

      Delete
    11. I di not accept all those defiitions and codes - nor do many catholics.

      Delete
    12. Then why do you celebrate the sacraments and why have yourself ordained by anyone as a Bishop.

      Delete
    13. Well then be logical Pat and deny the Sacraments.
      Or is the few bob from 'marriages' too good to pass up?

      Delete
    14. 14:46, the 'Church' may 'own' sacramental ritual...but not the grace which CAN flow through it.

      Ritual can be absolutely devoid of grace: this is so, for example, where a truly impenitent 'penitent' receives 'absolution' from a priest. In such a case, there is no transmission of grace, (despite the ritual of sacramental confession), since the 'penitent' is not open to receive it.

      You need to learn to separate ritual and grace. The two are not synonymous. And one does not necessarily signify the other; nor is one dependent on the other, since the action of God cannot be confined to ritual. If you disagree, then you are among that fringe company of absolute 'nutters', the sedecavantists, and would ,with them, proclaim 'Extra ecclesiam nulla salus!' ('Outside the (Roman Catholic) Church, there is no salvation!) You would, also, be at odds with the teaching of the Second Vatican Council.

      Delete
    15. All religions are man made as people try to package up the mysteries revealed by Christ/Mohamed etc. The potential of reaching God has been granted to everyone from Adam and Eve downward

      Delete
    16. No priest can bless a mortal sin.

      Delete
    17. Who was talking of mortal sin?

      Delete
    18. Sin is sin. The terms mortal and venial are human like feet and inches. Life is lived in relationship or lack of relationship with God. The consequences are light or darkness. Easter Blessings to one and all

      Delete
  7. Attitudes to being a couple have changed in modern times. Cohabiting shows that the law in some ways recognises the rights of persons in partnership. As long as respect and love are at the centre of relationships all that we can do is affirm the good

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with Sean Page and also with 10:30
      By all means support and encourage same sex unions but calling them Marriages is just nonsense.
      As for transgender people, well they are deserving of our love and support too but to encourage 'sex changing' is to normalise what is essentially an act of physical mutilation. Transgender people are suffering a self acceptance issue and like the anorexic who sees themselves fat no matter what the physical evidence they too are suffering from a serious mental aberration. There is some limited research in the US which would suggest that psychological problems intensify after 'realignment surgery'.

      Delete
    2. MourneManMichael at 13:28 is just acting the monkey!

      Delete
  8. Please don't be homophobic on this issue. There is too much of that if we dig deep enough. In N. Ireland there is a deep ignorance of this and a lot about f it was s down to homophobia.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I object to that word homophobic. It means a fear or phobia of men and doesn't exist , unless maybe some Lesbians suffer the condition.

      Delete
    2. Object all you like 12.16 as homophobia is alive and very much kicking in N. Ireland and that is what I object to.

      Delete
    3. Homophobia is an invented term to bully all who have moral objections to homosexuality being mainstreamed as something equivalent to marriage being the preserve of male and female unions.

      Delete
  9. Nobody is claiming that these gay marriages are sacramental RC marriages.

    They are civil marriages.

    Having said that I believe that all love and loving relationships are pleasing to God.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pat, Civil marriages are legal contracts which despite utilising the language of life long and exclusive unions can be set aside by the strike of a judicial gavel.
      What do the marriage vows mean if there is a back door out as soon as the going gets tough?
      As for all loving relationships being pleasing to God, while that's a lovely liberal sound byte it presumes a knowledge of God that contradicts centuries of christian teaching and tradition.

      Delete
    2. No. Its a comment based on the words if Scripture.

      God is love and all love is a mirror of God - parental love, sibling love, marital live, friendship, etc etc.

      No amount of centuries of human tradition can add or take away from God's self identifying with LOVE.

      Delete
    3. Christian tradition and teaching - what a laugh. Did that tradition and teaching once endorse slavery?

      Delete
    4. Oh Pat, If only things were so simple. What about St. Paul's clear condemnation of homosexual acts?

      Delete
    5. Ah I wondered when other issues would be dragged in to muddy the waters. We're not discussing slavery here. St.Paul clearly condemns homosexual acts.

      Delete
    6. 13:32, where does Paul condemn loving 'homosexual acts'?

      Delete
    7. God simifies.

      Man complicates.

      Delete
    8. I'm discussing slavery and that's my point. Homosexuality is not mentioned once in the New Testament, you use passages of the Bible like the Bible thumpers to justify your homophobic prejudiced views.

      Delete
    9. Well enjoy your one sided discussion with yourself!

      Delete
    10. MC at 13:44
      Romans 1:24-27; 1Corinthians 6:9-10; and 1Tim 1:10.

      Delete
    11. The denial of same sex marriage as a sacrament is a violation of spiritual rights of lgbt people and it is Catholic doctrine that God can get around sacramental rules. So a baby intended to be baptised but which dies first is saved directly by God. So civil marriage will be sacramental for it is the best a Catholic gay couple can do for they are denied the right to marry in Church. Promise and Presence: An Exploration in Sacramental Theology
      https://books.google.ie/books?isbn=1610976053
      John Colwell - 2011. Dignity USA announced support for “full access to marriage and ordination” in the Catholic Church. The group’s annual convention, held in Seattle, approved a resolution that said Catholic leaders should “ensure that all of the sacraments of our Church be administered regardless of the gender identity, sexual orientation, or relational status of the person(s) seeking the sacrament.”

      Delete
    12. 14:53, none of the passages you cited is even remotely connected with loving, stable, homosexual unions.

      Homosexuality AS AN ORIENTATION was unknown in ancient times, a fact that is obvious from Paul's thought, especially in Romans.

      Paul, along with the Church Fathers, saw homosexuality as the outcome of excessive heterosexual lust. If you read Romans with a more critical eye, you will learn this, since Paul speaks of heterosexual men and women 'exchanging natural for unnatural relations'. A genuine homosexual does no such thing.

      Having said this, my own view is that God, while not frowning on self-sacrificing homosexual love, nevertheless wants these relationships to be chaste. I accept that homosexual couples in stable relationships may lapse sexually from time to time, but then repent and keep trying, assisted by grace. The possibility of sexual lapse in stable homosexual relationships is no reason to throw out a shining baby with murky bathwater. After all, do heterosexual marriages always observe moral probity? No sensible person would suggest abolishing the institution of marriage as an occasion of sin.

      Delete
    13. There are many Biblical references on that matter (as quoted by the poster at 14.53 above) but I think the intense anger of God when He destroyed the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah where certain practices had become commonplace is very telling. Of course, there are various excuses and explanations often offered up for it nowadays eg that there were many kinds of sin and inhospitality in the cities etc. That was probably true, but all the same it happened. It was what it was.
      (Please note that I give the info in part reply to a poster's query and it in no way indicates that I treat anyone with any less respect and fairness, whatever his choices and orientation. No one knows all of God's mind and the reasons why some of His children are as they are)

      Delete
    14. 16:10,those 'various excuses and explanations often offered up' for the biblical tale (and I deliberately use the word 'tale' here) of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah are based on sound biblical hermeneutics and exegesis. Your dismissing them is irresponsible. The tale had nothing whatever to do with homosexuality, as the prophet Ezekiel makes clear.

      Delete
    15. The bible needs to be read in context. We bring our own prejudices to the bible - today for example, we think it obvious that men and women are equal - in the biblical story of Lot in Sodom, for example, it is clear that Lot's daughters are treated as his property. We do not endorse every prejudice held by a specific culture at a specific time. But equally wrong it taking a superficial understanding of biblical texts both out of context and without giving the text sufficient analysis. On the specific points raised -

      Sodom and Gomorrah: Lot remonstrates with the men of Sodom not on the basis of homosexuality, but on their intention to rape the angelic visitors and breach the Hebrew code of hospitality. The visitors are to be dominated and sexually humiliated. Any act which is homosexual rape is a homosexual act, but to condemn homosexual rape is not to condemn homosexual acts any more than a condemnation of heterosexual rape is a condemnation of heterosexual acts.

      Romans: To use this as an argument against homosexuality is to say that God wills homosexuals to be damned to hell. The text is clear: "God gave them up". The essential point that Paul presents is not that these practices deserve the wrath of God, but that they are the result of God's wrath. This should give cause to stop and think and do a proper textual analysis about what is actually be described here. It is certainly not homosexual relations per se.

      1 Corinthians: Here Paul recognises that not everyone can master their sexual desire and remain chaste. He presents the remedy for those who cannot master their desires as marriage. Those who oppose homosexual relations are therefore stating that God has either (a) provided no remedy for sin for gays or (b) that all gays are inherently capable of overcoming sexual desire. The problematic use of the word arsenokoites indicates that Paul was referring specifically to prevalent pederastic relations - relations which harm others. The context of the list of vices Paul presents has one single common theme - activities which cause harm to others.

      1 Tim: The word andrapodistes here, used in conjunction with arsenokoites, rather indicates that the specific context is brothels.

      Magna Carta goes on to state that in his view homosexuals are to remain chaste. Unless Magna Carta also considers that those relations are in fact sinful, I cannot see the logic of that position.

      The simple fact is that there is scant biblical evidence for a blanket condemnation of a committed homosexual relationship. The best position those supporting that view can get to is that there is some suggestion of condemnation - it comes nowhere close to the threshold of proof for a prohibition. My own view is that scripture does not condemn a committed homosexual relationship. For those arguing to the contrary, they need to offer up something more substantive in the way of evidence than what I have seen on today's blog.

      TRS

      Delete
    16. Cardinal Magna, Your verbal gymnastics don't change the simple fact that the Church has consistently held homosexual acts to be repugnant to the christian life and no amount of dithering will make a difference.

      Delete
    17. 15:06 This would be the same DIGNITY organisation which disrupted Masses for many years at St.Patrick's Cathedral in New Your and showed profound disrespect to the Eucharist by spitting it out on the floor??
      DIGNITY my ass!

      Delete
    18. @17:14, the Tradition of the Church to which you refer is not quite as simplistic as you suggest. The question is whether or not the custom of condemning homosexuality is true. Tradition is often used to describe not a doctrine which has been fully examined, debated and accepted by the Church, but rather to describe what Christians have been in the habit of saying - in other words a custom. As St Cyprian said, custom without truth is merely error grown old.

      Delete
    19. 17:14, you are thinking of 'homosexual acts' in purely sexual terms. Get your face out of the gutter. Homosexual acts aren't limited to sexual intimacy.

      Delete
    20. 17:21, what is your evidence that the 'Eucharist' was spat out on the floor in protest? During such a protest in 1989, one of the protesters did crumble a communion wafer in front of Archbishop John O'Connor, but there was no evidence that I am aware of that the wafer had been consecrated. And it most certainly had not been spat out.

      Delete
  10. Met a student priest in the boiler house sauna in Dublin last night Father Buckley. He wasn't shy and says he was a regulat there. He told me he was under Armagh. He was at a sex party before the sauna and he was high on Crystal Meth but he was handsome. What a waste.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, what a waste, - of hard-earned parishioners'money.

      Delete
    2. If you know his name you have a duty to ring his Bishop and report him. We don't want liars living a double life in the priesthood.

      Delete
    3. If this is true, it shouldn't be too hard to work out who the Armagh student is and report him to Maynooth and Archbishop Martin. That student must be removed from seminary.

      Delete
    4. Amy will IMMEDIATELY do NOTHING - just Dublin Diarmuid.

      Delete
    5. He was cheeky enough to ask me to pay his €22 sauna admission. I have his name and mobile phone number which I will pass to Bishop Buckley. If I passed it to Armagh nothing will get done. Sorry I referred to you earlier as Father Buckley.

      Delete
    6. Go on, tell us the name. I bet it was Stephanie, she doesn't look bad at all. Shocked though that a Sem should be using Crystal Meth but it's all the rage it seems in gay bars and clubs.

      Delete
    7. I hope you will pass on his name and details to Pat because this stuff has to stop. He must be really "out of his tree" if he is so blatant, even after all the scandals about Maynooth and seminarians. Pat will know what to do. It is for his own good - as well as the good of others - that he is not allowed to proceed any further.

      Delete
    8. Not true 13:38! You want to believe that you met a handsome seminarian in the Boiler House...I'm not saying that it doesn't happen but you're deluded. Your description of what you think happened is flawed. Yes, it sounds good and you want to brag that you met a hot student priest but no! Time to wake up now.

      Delete
    9. He will probably be allowed to continue his studies by that waste of space Amy. Sure look at how Puck has been allowed to continue and on the webcam tonight singing the Gospel as bold as brass, patted on the back for the performance by the idiot PP of Listowel. It's enough to make you Puck, sorry I meant puke.

      Delete
    10. 13 38. Sad. Indeed what a waste. It was just Arthur Guinness and friends in my day. Abusing or using substances etc for me points to underlying other issues. Where's the temple police

      Delete
  11. 13.32 proves my point about homophobia, need I say anymore?

    ReplyDelete
  12. The trouble with Pat's view at 13:19 is that it causes confusion in the extreme. What about pedophiles who claim 'love' for children - this too could be presented by distorted thinking as a reflection of God's love; WHILE PATENTLY IT IS AN ABOMINATION.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There can be no love in abuse.

      Reaal love never uses or abuses.

      Delete
    2. That is correct, Pat and abusers are grossly insidious and use every plausible tactic and "reasoning"

      Delete
  13. 13.47. I can never understand how pedophiles do not pick up from the expression on the child's face that they do not like what is happening to them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A) in abuse the power is twisted si that abuse is made out to be love, and the victim believes it, resulting in fucked up relationships for years to come
      B) it is not unknown for the target of abuse to find sexual pleasure, which makes it even more complicated.

      Delete
  14. There can be no love in the abuse of the human body for a purpose which is clearly unnatural. The rectum is for defecation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Where did God, who made the rectum, say it was only for defection?

      What about doctors putting cameras up it.

      I think more heterosexual people practice anal sex than gay peopke!

      Delete
    2. Where did God, who made the rectum, say it was only for defection?

      What about doctors putting cameras up it.

      I think more heterosexual people practice anal sex than gay peopke!

      Delete
    3. Pat , I won't dignify your appalling comment with a reply.

      Delete
    4. The use of the rectum for endoscopy is for the betterment of the patients health unlike a vile lustful act.

      Delete
    5. It's quite a pleasurable experience when you experience anal sex. You should try it sometime 17.31, you might well enjoy it.

      Delete
    6. The rectum is for the purpose chosen by it's owner.

      Sexual morality should focus on the upholding of vows and loyalty towards unadulterated love rather than control of other people's bodies.

      We get one chance at mortal love. Who is more true to God's plan; the two gay people who live out a monogamous life together in love or the celibate who condemns them in God's name?

      CR

      Delete
    7. Ugh! Some people give way TMI for many decent folk's liking.

      Delete
    8. The owner as you express it is God the creator.

      Delete
    9. Many who condemn it are married heterosexuals not celibates, so your point is silly.

      Delete
    10. Presumably MC will also be taking into account what his source, the prophet, Ezekiel had to say about those who were puffed up with pride and arrogance! Hope he puts his new-found knowledge to good effect.

      Delete
    11. Research has shown that monogamy is virtually non existent in gaya relationships. By its nature the hay orientation is promiscuous since men are in pursuit of the father figure that let them down.

      Delete
    12. 17.31 sounds like a rectum.

      Delete
    13. Strange that Pat didn't publish my comment about him being in the shit today, or something to that effect.
      Yep Pat far to much shit posts on here.

      Delete
    14. obviously many of u on here haven't heard about
      Haemorrhoids.crones disease
      Irritable bowel syndrome, diverticulosis, bowel cancer
      The large bowel should be treated with care and caution
      Colostomy is very common and very demoralising

      Delete
    15. I have had Crohns Disease for 30 years.

      Delete
    16. 19:28, so you do, then, accept my point about Ezekiel. Good.

      Delete
    17. 19:31, research has shown no such thing.

      From whose website did you obtain that fraudulent information? Church Militant's?

      Delete
    18. 21:59, you are correct about the large bowel. The rectum, also, should be looked after. It is one of my reasons for believing that anal sex, whether by heterosexual or homosexual couples, is morally wrong.

      Delete
    19. Bishop Pat, I am sorry to hear that you suffer with Crohn's. It can, without correct management, be debilitating.

      Delete
    20. Mine has been exceptionally well managed - thanks to God and his gifts to a few wonderful doctors.

      I will do a blog about Crohns.

      Delete
    21. So we're back to the MC Show are we? - And now he's also the world's expert on Crohns! (By the way, none of the previous posters accepted any of his silly half-baked nonsense. In your dreams, mate..)

      Delete
    22. 22:57, you aren't in my dreams...mate.

      Delete
  15. 15.25 You are probably right Pat. Saw on TV that the sale of sex toys in UK has rocketed 🤣

    ReplyDelete
  16. Guess I have to hunt the civil registry for the answer, but on a closing note how often have I had it preached to me that the scriptures were written for the people of the times, which in relation to marital affairs was well shall we say one sided. Cultures couldn't understand the complexity of the human condition which is accepted today in all its sexual complexity. After all the current Pope says who am I to judge and thus who are WE. Again I am thankful that I am a Lesbian in a man's body . There are of course many amongst us who are hung up on a by gone time a few thousand years ago. All scripture is not relevant all of the time, although we can draw from them. No doubt what I say for some will be objectionable but I will not judge them for who am I.
    The arguments will always be circular I believe.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. MournemanMichael16 April 2017 at 00:37

      Thank you Hank. Your open minded perspective is commendable.
      MMM

      Delete
  17. Looking at the Easter Vigil webcam from Listowel church. The picture unfortunately isn't very clear but the third cleric on the altar looks very like Puck in full deacon's vestments. !!

    ReplyDelete
  18. I can confirm that Puck was one of the celebrants in Listowel . In fact he sang the gospel and the PP congratulated " Rev Sean " as it was the first time the Gospel was sung in the church. He has a lovely voice in fairness. So it looks as if he is on the way to ordination in spite of everything

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do u think he had on the jock strap?
      You wd know by the way he stood
      Ahemmmmmmmm

      Delete
    2. Do u think he will enter the "Voice" next season on RTE

      Delete
    3. He could wear his jockstrap whilst performing.

      Delete
    4. Aside from any bishop ordaining him, how can a primary school principal let him in the door?

      That is where the blog should focus now.

      Bishop Ray Browne is deaf to complaints - he is also of the opinion that anything that happened during Puck's time in Maynooth is outside his jurisdiction as Puck was answerable to the Maynooth authorities at that time. Once Hugh Connolly signed off on him Ray thinks he cannot review that decision so he will not now or ever review it. FACT!

      Wait one generation, many hurt people and more faith-damage before the apology comes from Rat's successor.

      Delete
    5. And that is more than enough about him, thank you!

      Delete
    6. @00:15

      Why so protective of Ray Browne? He meets with victims of abuse, promises them a prayer and forgets that he is God's hands sworn to act in God's name to communicate God's mercy. Like many other Muppets he waits around for God himself to part the sky and come back down to act.

      Delete
    7. He is well in with the primary school principal, that's how he gets in the door.

      Delete
    8. I wasn't "protective" to Ray Browne of whom I know nothing - - I was referring to the infamous Puck on whom far too many blog column inches have been expended already!

      Delete
    9. @11:21

      Can this merit be elaborated upon? How is he Well in with the principal? Are children at risk because of his influence/formative influence?

      Delete
  19. 23.41are you the Seminarian that was in the boiler house as you come across as totally defensive. Sounds like guilt to me.

    ReplyDelete
  20. God be with y he days when men were men and Pansy was the name of a flower! I'm sick of limp wristed men with sybilant s's on our TV morning noon and night.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Any updates on Fr Ger Fitzgerald +Pat? You'll remember him. When I was in seminary with him he used to sneak out to meet you. He used to have two girlfriends in Maynooth. (I saw him shifting one but a second told me they were sleeping together). I hear he still has a girl strung along.

    ReplyDelete
  22. All this homosexuality is disgusting. God made one man and one woman to go together and intercourse should be vaginal. The structure and function of the human body shows how it was designed to be used, praise God.
    I mean, I'm a man, so obviously my nipples and tailbone were designed by God for the purpose of...
    Oh, shit.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. MournemanMichael16 April 2017 at 13:35

      Nice one.
      Humour is often the best ridicule.
      MMM

      Delete
  23. So happy Easter anyways
    I think ,pat, you've got your thrill
    Now let's move on
    Christ is risen, perhaps I should go to mass

    ReplyDelete
  24. Marriage = 1 man, 1 woman.

    :)

    ReplyDelete