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.
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.
In a word: "Agreed."
ReplyDeleteI 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
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.
ReplyDeleteThe biggest issue I believe is the stranglehold the churches put on marriages that should never have happened in the first place.
ReplyDeleteThe 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.
Im afraid I do not know the answer to that?
DeleteMaybe 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?
Pat blessings at Easter to you and yours.
ReplyDeleteSome 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
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.
ReplyDeleteDream 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.
ReplyDeleteSame 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!
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.
DeleteThe important theological point for Catholics is that the lifelong heterosexual marriage of the Baptised is a Sacrament.
DeletePriests 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?
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.
DeleteSuch 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
'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.
DeleteIt 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.
12:22, you make an excellent point.
DeleteSo speaks the expert on everything.
DeleteMagna 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.
DeleteActually 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.
DeleteMy Lord Cardinal Makey-up,
DeleteYour 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.
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.
DeleteI di not accept all those defiitions and codes - nor do many catholics.
DeleteThen why do you celebrate the sacraments and why have yourself ordained by anyone as a Bishop.
DeleteWell then be logical Pat and deny the Sacraments.
DeleteOr is the few bob from 'marriages' too good to pass up?
14:46, the 'Church' may 'own' sacramental ritual...but not the grace which CAN flow through it.
DeleteRitual 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.
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
DeleteNo priest can bless a mortal sin.
DeleteWho was talking of mortal sin?
DeleteSin 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
DeleteAttitudes 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
ReplyDeleteI agree with Sean Page and also with 10:30
DeleteBy 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'.
MourneManMichael at 13:28 is just acting the monkey!
DeletePlease 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.
ReplyDeleteI object to that word homophobic. It means a fear or phobia of men and doesn't exist , unless maybe some Lesbians suffer the condition.
DeleteOr nuns?
DeleteObject all you like 12.16 as homophobia is alive and very much kicking in N. Ireland and that is what I object to.
DeleteHomophobia 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.
DeleteNobody is claiming that these gay marriages are sacramental RC marriages.
ReplyDeleteThey are civil marriages.
Having said that I believe that all love and loving relationships are pleasing to God.
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.
DeleteWhat 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.
No. Its a comment based on the words if Scripture.
DeleteGod 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.
Christian tradition and teaching - what a laugh. Did that tradition and teaching once endorse slavery?
DeleteOh Pat, If only things were so simple. What about St. Paul's clear condemnation of homosexual acts?
DeleteAh 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.
Delete13:32, where does Paul condemn loving 'homosexual acts'?
DeleteGod simifies.
DeleteMan complicates.
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.
DeleteWell enjoy your one sided discussion with yourself!
DeleteMC at 13:44
DeleteRomans 1:24-27; 1Corinthians 6:9-10; and 1Tim 1:10.
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
Deletehttps://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.”
14:53, none of the passages you cited is even remotely connected with loving, stable, homosexual unions.
DeleteHomosexuality 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.
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.
Delete(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)
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.
DeleteThe 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 -
DeleteSodom 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
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.
Delete15:06 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??
DeleteDIGNITY my ass!
@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.
Delete17:14, 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.
Delete17:21, 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.
DeleteMet 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.
ReplyDeleteYes, what a waste, - of hard-earned parishioners'money.
DeleteIf 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.
DeleteIf 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.
DeleteAmy will IMMEDIATELY do NOTHING - just Dublin Diarmuid.
DeleteHe 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.
DeleteGo 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.
DeleteI 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.
DeleteNot 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.
DeleteHe 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.
Delete13 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
Delete13.32 proves my point about homophobia, need I say anymore?
ReplyDeleteThe 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.
ReplyDeleteThere can be no love in abuse.
DeleteReaal love never uses or abuses.
That is correct, Pat and abusers are grossly insidious and use every plausible tactic and "reasoning"
Delete13.47. 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.
ReplyDeleteA) 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
DeleteB) it is not unknown for the target of abuse to find sexual pleasure, which makes it even more complicated.
There can be no love in the abuse of the human body for a purpose which is clearly unnatural. The rectum is for defecation.
ReplyDeleteWhere did God, who made the rectum, say it was only for defection?
DeleteWhat about doctors putting cameras up it.
I think more heterosexual people practice anal sex than gay peopke!
Where did God, who made the rectum, say it was only for defection?
DeleteWhat about doctors putting cameras up it.
I think more heterosexual people practice anal sex than gay peopke!
Pat , I won't dignify your appalling comment with a reply.
DeleteThe use of the rectum for endoscopy is for the betterment of the patients health unlike a vile lustful act.
DeleteIt's quite a pleasurable experience when you experience anal sex. You should try it sometime 17.31, you might well enjoy it.
DeleteThe rectum is for the purpose chosen by it's owner.
DeleteSexual 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
Ugh! Some people give way TMI for many decent folk's liking.
DeleteThe owner as you express it is God the creator.
DeleteMany who condemn it are married heterosexuals not celibates, so your point is silly.
DeletePresumably 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.
DeleteResearch 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.
Delete17.31 sounds like a rectum.
DeleteStrange that Pat didn't publish my comment about him being in the shit today, or something to that effect.
DeleteYep Pat far to much shit posts on here.
obviously many of u on here haven't heard about
DeleteHaemorrhoids.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
I have had Crohns Disease for 30 years.
Delete19:28, so you do, then, accept my point about Ezekiel. Good.
Delete19:31, research has shown no such thing.
DeleteFrom whose website did you obtain that fraudulent information? Church Militant's?
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.
DeleteBishop Pat, I am sorry to hear that you suffer with Crohn's. It can, without correct management, be debilitating.
DeleteMine has been exceptionally well managed - thanks to God and his gifts to a few wonderful doctors.
DeleteI will do a blog about Crohns.
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..)
Delete22:57, you aren't in my dreams...mate.
Delete15.25 You are probably right Pat. Saw on TV that the sale of sex toys in UK has rocketed 🤣
ReplyDeleteGuess 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.
ReplyDeleteThe arguments will always be circular I believe.
Thank you Hank. Your open minded perspective is commendable.
DeleteMMM
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. !!
ReplyDeleteI 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
ReplyDeleteDo u think he had on the jock strap?
DeleteYou wd know by the way he stood
Ahemmmmmmmm
Do u think he will enter the "Voice" next season on RTE
DeleteHe could wear his jockstrap whilst performing.
DeleteAside from any bishop ordaining him, how can a primary school principal let him in the door?
DeleteThat 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.
And that is more than enough about him, thank you!
Delete@00:15
DeleteWhy 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.
He is well in with the primary school principal, that's how he gets in the door.
DeleteI 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@11:21
DeleteCan this merit be elaborated upon? How is he Well in with the principal? Are children at risk because of his influence/formative influence?
23.41are you the Seminarian that was in the boiler house as you come across as totally defensive. Sounds like guilt to me.
ReplyDeleteGod 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.
ReplyDeleteAny 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.
ReplyDeleteAll 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.
ReplyDeleteI mean, I'm a man, so obviously my nipples and tailbone were designed by God for the purpose of...
Oh, shit.
Nice one.
DeleteHumour is often the best ridicule.
MMM
So happy Easter anyways
ReplyDeleteI think ,pat, you've got your thrill
Now let's move on
Christ is risen, perhaps I should go to mass
Marriage = 1 man, 1 woman.
ReplyDelete:)