Saturday, 6 May 2017

ARCHDIOCESE OF DUBLIN'S "H" PROBLEM

Image result for archdiocese of dublin

THE "H PROBLEM"

A senior Irish Catholic cleric I knew, with responsibility for seminarian's formation, used to refer to homosexuality among priests and seminarians as the "H PROBLEM".

I entered Clonliffe Seminary, the seminary for the Archdiocese of Dublin (1854 - 2001) 47 years ago in 1970 and I quickly became aware that there was a big H problem in both Clonliffe and in the Archdiocese of Dublin in general.



A fellow seminarian who lived on the same corridor as myself in "Junior House" was having a homosexual relationship with a seminarian in "Senior House". He would go over late every night to have sex with the senior. On his way back, generally about 2 am he would knock my door and come in for a chat and a cry about the situation he was involved in. He was in love with the senior but felt that the senior was only using him. He was also aware that the seniorwas having sex with at least one other Clonliffe seminarian. 

The H PROBLEM eventually got to the ears of the seminary staff and as a result a senior seminarian was asked to conduct an investigation into the H Problem by the then president of Clonliffe - Bishop Joseph Carroll. 




We seminarians never heard the outcome of the investigation.

But my friend the junior seminarian was expelled from Clonliffe and his senior lover was ordained to the priesthood very soon!

While writing this Blog today I checked to see if the senior was still a priest in Dublin. His name is NOT on the list of priests. He must have left. Did he leave of his own accord or was there a scandal? We will probably never know.

Some of the homosexuality in Dublin had its roots in an archdiocesan organisation called THE ARCHBISHOP'S CORPS.

The Archbishop's Corps was an organisation of young boys and men who dressed up in blue uniforms - much like scouts - and who provided Archbishop John Charles McQuaid with a guard of honour on his public appearances. I was never in the Corps but was told that the H Problem existed there? The generalissimo of the Corps was Monsignor Tom Fehily who was a great friend of Bishop Eamon Casey's.


TOM FEHILY
My early and lasting impressions of the Archbishop's Corps was of a body with a strong homoerotic subculture.

In my time in Clonliffe and later there were also stories of Dublin seminarians having sex with seminary staff and Dublin priests. A number of these priests later and suddenly  "disappeared" from the archdiocesan directory.

PAEDOPHILIA IN CLONLIFFE:

I have met a young man who claims that he was sexually abused in Clonliffe by a priest and seminarians when he visited there on an altar boys trip.

The man reported his alleged abuse to the archdiocese and to the Gardai and was brought by the Gardai to view room in Clonliffe where his says his abuse took place.

One of the rooms he viewed was the former PONTIFICAL DRESSING ROOM of Bishop Joe Carroll that later was used for another purpose after Bishop Carroll left Clonliffe to become the PP of Donnybrook.

There was NEVER any suggestion that Bishop Carroll knew anything about this as it happened after he left Clonliffe.

Commission of Investigation
Report into the Catholic
Archdiocese of Dublin

July 2009; released November 26, 2009

Children in or from children’s homes 28.8 During his time in Clonliffe College (1968 – 1974), Bill Carney and a number of other students were regular visitors to a number of children‟s homes. The children‟s homes visited by Bill Carney were St Joseph‟s, Tivoli Road; St Vincent‟s, Drogheda; Lakelands, Sandymount and The Grange, Kill O The Grange. The Clonliffe students took children away for holidays during 92 This was a programme to encourage the fostering of children over the age of ten. 416 the summers. Bill Carney‟s involvement with St Joseph‟s and The Grange was more extensive than with the other institutions and continued after his ordination. The Commission is aware of complaints by three former residents of St Vincent‟s, one former resident of St Joseph‟s and one former resident of The Grange that Bill Carney sexually abused them. There is a strong suspicion that one other resident of St Joseph‟s was abused and there are suspicions that other residents of all the institutions he visited were also abused. 28.9 In the 1970s, care workers in some of the children‟s homes visited by Fr Carney clearly did not regard him as a good influence and there were also concerns among health board social workers. At least one care worker in The Grange seems to have had suspicions of inappropriate behaviour but the Commission was unable to contact this person to verify this. Health board social workers gave evidence to the Commission that they were concerned about Fr Carney‟s influence on some residents of the homes but they did not suspect sexual abuse. Their main concern was that he was creating unrealistic expectations among the children including expectations that he could provide them with a home. St Vincent‟s, Drogheda 28.10 St Vincent‟s was an industrial school and, as such, was governed by the provisions of the Children Acts.

Image result for father bill carney

Bill Carney and other deacons and/or priests took some of the residents away on holidays. Three boys complained they were abused by Bill Carney on these holidays. Another priest, who accompanied Bill Carney and some boys on holidays in 1973, gave evidence to the Gardaí that, while he never saw any sexual abuse on that holiday, Bill Carney did say to him that “you have to sleep with them because they are insecure”. 



A few stories of gay Dublin priests have made their way into the public forum - including this one:

Priest died in gay sauna. 

AS MANY as 20 Catholic priests are regular visitors to the gay Dublin

sauna club where an elderly priest died suddenly over the weekend, the

owner of the premises, Mr Liam Ledwidge, told The Irish Times last

night.



He said that Father Liam Cosgrave (68), who apparently died of a heart

attack early on Saturday morning, was a regular visitor to the

Incognito sauna club, on Bow Lane East off Aungier Street, for many

years.



Meanwhile the Archbishop of Dublin, Dr Desmond Connell, said yesterday
that he was ``shocked and saddened'' by the circumstances of Father
Cosgrave's death. In a statement, Dr Connell said the death of the
curate was a tragedy. ``The circumstances of his death have shocked
and saddened us all and make his death even more tragic.''

The Incognito's owner, Mr Ledwidge, said the Baldoyle curate, 
was just one of a number of priestswho frequented the premises.
We do have a lot of priests visiting,around 20 of them. 
Of course they wouldn't all congregate at the same


time and they don't form a higher proportion than any other

profession. They don't wear their clerical collars, but over the years

you do get to know what people do,'' said Mr Ledwidge, a partner in

the club which opened 12 years ago.



Mr Ledwidge said there were 70 men in the club when Father Cosgrave

was found in a collapsed condition outside one of the private

cubicles, in a downstairs corridor, by another client at 4.30 a.m. The

majority of the men left the premises prior to the arrival of the

Garda.



Reports in some newspapers that the priest had been taking pills at

the time to stimulate sexual arousal were denied by the club manager.

``I have never, ever known the man to take anything like that. It is

untrue,'' said the club manager, Mr Stepen McCormack.



It was reported at the time that there were two other Dublin priests in the sauna at the time who administered the Last Rites to Father Cosgrove.


FATHER COSGROVE'S BODY BEING BROUGHT TO BALDOYLE CHURCH

THE SITUATION IN DUBLIN TODAY:

I think that today the Archdiocese of Dublin has a bigger H PROBLEM than it ever had before.

1. Sexually active gay priests seem to be more favoured that celibate priests or sexually active heterosexual priests.

2. Sexually active gay seminarians are protected and ordained irregardless of their activities.

3. It appears that gay priests and seminarians are more favoured and more likely to "do well" than heterosexual ones?



There is the case of Gorgeous

























There is the case of Fr Derwin:




There is the case of Fr Brough:

Image result for father brough


There is the Pro Cathedral Issue:



















There is "THE STRANGE GOINGS ON" at Maynooth.


























There is the case of THE CROCHET CLUB at The Irish College, Rome.





















There is case of the Bray alleged rape.


















BUT these are the facts!


The Roman Catholic Church demands that its priests are celibate.

Therefore surely a priest, whether or not he be gay or straight, who is sexually active should be challenged and given the choice to stay as a celibate or continue having sex and leave?

Surely all bishops and archbishops of the RC Church should be faithful in implementing the rules of the Church on priesthood or celibacy?

Is doing something different or turning a blind eye to sexually active seminarians and priests not a serious dereliction of episcopal duties?


Personally I believe that the celibacy rule for priests, both straight or gay is WRONG.


That is ONE of the reasons I am an independent Catholic and not a Roman Catholic.

Should "Jack the Lad" seminarians and priests not become independent Catholics or forget about the priesthood altogether and be free to enjoy whatever sexual life they desire?

Is it not terribly dishonest to live the DOUBLE LIFE - to preach one thing to the masses and do another thing in your private life?

Does this not bring Christianity. Roman Catholicism and your life into disrepute?

Of course Diarmuid Martin is right. GAY PEOPLE SHOULD BE LOVED.


But does LOVE have DOUBLE STANDARDS?

Does LOVE lead a DOUBLE LIFE? 

Does LOVE promote HYPOCRISY? 

Does LOVE turn a BLIND EYE?

Does LOVE deal in WINKS AND NODS?


Not the LOVE Jesus Christ preached!

NOT REAL LOVE!




191 comments:

  1. Roman Catholic priesthood = Trojan Horse...for Satan. Away with this filthy bauble!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Certainly the devil will use the priesthood as a Trojan Horse to wreak absolute havoc. He has always done so. Nevertheless, it is precisely because of the nature of the priesthood that he seeks to do this.

      The Faith experience of multitudes of the faithful throughout the ages, who have been blessed by the ministries of faithful and good priests, gives the lie to this sweeping and profoundly offensive description of the priesthood of Jesus Christ as a "filthy bauble".

      Do you do away with the medical, legal, educational professions because of corruption?

      Neither can you write off the entire priesthood of Christ because of unworthy men who infiltrate it.

      Delete
    2. Here, I was walkin down Prince Albert there for til get the paper and Big Lily was out scrubbin her step.

      She says til me, "watch yerself luv. Thon aul doll, Carter has been up bawlin and shoutin all night so she has.

      My nerves is racked so they are. Never got my eyes closed the hole night. Had til get up and make maself a wee drap o' tea at 4 a clack this mornin so a did.

      I'm ready for til leave this wee street and move somewhere lovely and quiet like Turf Lodge so a am. Its shackin, shackin".

      Delete
    3. 09:00, you have hit a nail squarely on its head. Yes, Satan can and does use the priesthood because of its nature. And this is because its nature falls very far short of that envisioned by Christ: the servant model of discipleship.

      But what you don't understand is that the problem isn't 'the unworthy men who infiltrate the priesthood', but the very concept of priesthood itself; this attracts unworthy candidates and has dominated both western and eastern Christendom for many centuries.

      Do you really believe that men like 'Gorgeous' and 'King Puck' would be drawn to the ministry if priests were truly seen as servants by lay Catholics and themselves? No, they wouldn't. Remember all those selfies by 'Gorgeous ' in clerical garb: they reveal his concept of priesthood as worldly and glamorous, as one that will serve his narcissistic self-image rather than the people of God.

      As for comparing priesthood to medical, legal and educational professions, you need to re-think this one. Those others are the real professionals, not Catholic priests. If we did away with them, we would lose much-needed expertise; but If we did away with Catholic priesthood, we would still have the only priest that matters (because there really is only one): Christ himself.

      Delete
    4. Florrie McWilliams, is thon you at 10:58? If y'see Big Lily agean, tell 'er am awfil sorray sh' fell off them friggin' hay heels o' hurs. (Shid had a few, y'know. Shiz like me: injoyze a wee medicinal drap t'steady t'nerves.) An nat fer the furst tyme either has sh' fallen off them bloody stilts. Am awfil annoyed 'bout it, cuz it manes a hav t' git off m'arse an' git m'own messages fer a wee wile, just til sh' gits pulled up a bit.

      Y'see thon noise last nite. Thon wuzn't me, y'know. Thon wuz oul Harry Murphy, at No. 25. His dakt'r put 'im awn thon viagra stuff (his Sadie towl mi th'other day he'd no petrol in his engine). Well, thon noise wuz him an' Sadie revin' up all nite long. (I think the dakt'r gave him premium unleaded instead o' the reglar stuff.) Am tellin' y'. The were makin' so much noise, a hadda down another battle o' vadka...medicinal like...til git m' aff t'sleep.

      Anywey, a can't stand ta'kin', cuz th' off-licence clozes in five minutes. Al see y' agean.

      Delete
    5. Maggie, when you try to talk like you're from the Pound Loney you just would like an aul doll from Cherry Valley doing a very bad impression. Big Lilly'll shoot the knickers aff a ye lol

      Delete
    6. Magna Carta at 14:17, you're wrong. You are making a sweeping generalisation and it is deeply unjust and offensive to me as a lay Catholic.

      There have been - and are - many faithful servant priests who are not there for their own aggrandisement. They have faithfully served God and His people. They have carried out - and are carrying out their mission - of facilitating peoples spiritual growth and union with God. They comfort and console the sorrowing, the troubled, the anxious and the fearful.

      The danger of using the sacred ministry for one's own ends was a danger, even for the first apostles and disciples. There have always been Judases; but there have always been too - and there always will be - holy and good priests who give of themselves with selfless dedication.

      The Lord warned us about weeds among the wheat planted by the devil. He Himself will deal with those causes of scandal to His faithful.

      Delete
    7. MC 14:58 lol..(I really did! And what's more, I needed it!) :-)

      Delete
    8. Listen, luv (15:54), am Bilfast cosmapolitin, so a am.

      Delete
    9. 16:04, I was speaking principally of priesthood (its false theology) rather than priests.

      A worldly theology of priesthood can only corrupt candidates.

      Delete
    10. 16.04 is spot on. The vast majority of priests do an outstanding job. Having been taught by priests, their influence was only positive. I never met any priest who was otherwise than a faithful servant of Christ. I knew some who left the priesthood reluctantly as they felt the competing call of marriage and family. Every single one of them was thoroughly decent, honourable and a good pastor. There is no reason to believe exaggerated claims about the incidence of H in the priesthood because, despite certain stereotypes, there is no evidence to suggest that any particular profession or occupation attracts a greater percentage of H than national and global averages which are consistently at around 2% with the exception of major metropolitan centres where the percentage is sometimes slightly higher. That 2% represents the H factor based on scientific data and analysis. A survey published in July 2014 by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that 1.8% of US men self-identify as gay. Based on published evidence there is no reason to believe that more than 2% of Irish priests are gay. Those who are gay entered the priesthood in full knowledge of that fact and presumably with full determination of will not to allow their homosexual disposition to manifest itself in sinful acts.

      Delete
    11. Donald Cozzens has written several intelligent books on the subject. "Sacred Silence" and "The changing face of the priesthood" are both worth reading. Mark Dowd, a former member of the Dominicans reckons that about 50% in the religious orders are gay. He is not homophobic, as he is also gay.

      Delete
    12. 16:04, you make a lot of assumptions.

      Opinion based largely on assumption is known by another name: 'fantasy'.

      Delete
  2. One of the funniest things I read was the other day about the Dominicans. I forget what was being discussed, but a commentator said something along the lines of, 'How can you say that about Fr X, he gave up a lucrative career as a dentist', as if that meant anything!!! I'm laughing at the thought of it ever since. Talk about a non squitur.

    ReplyDelete
  3. @Pat Did anyone get in touch with the PP where the alleged incident took place? Has it been reported to the Congregation for the Clergy?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Please don't forget the D priests. It's not all about H priests. Of course a lot of the H's are also D's. D is for Disappointed priests who are in a state of disintegration now that Charles Brown is gone. These D priests of the Dublin diocese are the cause of a great many in-house jokes at present in the diocese. They ran with Charlie, they talked with Charlie, they fed Charlie all in the hope of Charlie raising them to higher things. Oh Pat, you should see their faces now. Talk about depression! No amount of satin or lace garb can neutralize their disappointment.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @1.02 You are joking here, I take it? You are talking tongue in cheek surely?
      Because you paint a picture of really immature childish people who are stuck in the emotional underdevelopment of overgrown schoolboys.

      Delete
    2. The other churches do not seem to worry about the wife, children, boy friend or girl friend getting their hands on any wealth.

      So I feel that this sort of excuse is poor in the modern day. The Roman church has to be honest it hates not being in control its a do as I say movement and should you be man or woman enough to say NO then your out with no chance of returning. The year of Mercy for example was just a smoke screen for the bishops to hide behind. One man called Frankie cannot win the war of change by himself as even he knows that requires Demoracy.

      Delete
  5. Pat its all about greed and MONEY. I heard once from a bishop that homosexual priests a blind eye is turned as he will never marry or give the diocese funds away. Whereas a hetro priest, there is a worry that the woman and kids will take everything. SIMPLES

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What about the gay Priests who lavish lots of money on young lovers. Think of the expensive holidays, designer clothes, jewellery, meals in expensive restaurants and in some instances brand new cars. You will find that lots of Diocesan funds are given away by Gay priests to their toy boys.

      Delete
    2. It's usually th' old codgers that give financially to Christ-betrayin' clergy. Silly old bastardos!

      Delete
  6. I have been contributing to this blog for a number of years now and welcome the chance to reflect on and react to the topics posted. I have seen comments that are highly theological and reflective down to comments that appear full of frustration and attack persons rather than content. I ask myself where is it all going? Is there light at the end of the tunnel? Based on the overall image of church presented on here, I see church as a subculture that operates as a club for the initiated. Sadly this club is funded by the general public who remain on the periphery while the internal movers and shakers get on with beehive like detached lifestyles. I ask what is the purpose of the blog moving forward? To highlight injustice? Yes. To proactively promote positive change? I hope so. But (and there is always a but) Promoting positive measurable change is far easier said than done.

    ReplyDelete
  7. MourneManMichael7 May 2017 at 12:12

    Well put Sean. A timely and reflective comment.
    If I might add some of my own thoughts over recent months.
    I'm getting rather bored with:
    ....Continuing, almost neverending focus on sexuality, especially homosexuality.
    .....Backbiting comments invariably from anonymous writers, and where several 'of them' comment at same time, it's difficult to know who to reply to.
    .....References, mostly negative, to various clerics and their actions, often not by name or location, but by references seemingly designed to be understood only by those in the 'club'.
    .....One liner snide negativity directed at persons/other contributors rather than a focus on the subject being discussed.
    There's other stuff but that's enough for now.
    So while I follow the blog, sometimes with great interest, at other times I groan inwardly and wonder too where it's all going.
    Having said that, I do place considerable value on +Pat's efforts to shine a light into some of the murky doings of the RC establishment, and it saddens me to see so many devout honest faithful persons' trust and finances abused by a secretive clerical cabal.
    We can but hope that John 1:5 might prove true: "Light shines in the darkness, ...and the darkness has not overcome it".

    ReplyDelete
  8. I think the focus of this blog should be highlighting the ill dealings with the seminary, deacons, priests and bishops. NOTHING ELSE. PAt always tells us the days when Deacon Byrne or Maynooth is mentioned the figures go through the roofs into the 1000s. This should be his focus and eventually Rome will wake up.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Speaking of which, did any of you see the RTE Mass this morning? Priceless!

      Pat, it is worth a whole blog on its own.

      Some Maynooth key players in the choir - some looking clinically depressed.

      WHO was the guy in the alb with the odd-looking celebrant? Some of your readers will be interested.

      The celebrant is the national vocations director. Are his eyebrows painted on? Hair dyed jet black.

      What a performance!

      Delete
    2. The Mass, even on television, is not a spectator sport.

      Delete
    3. @12.23 I hear what you're saying.. but surely (as the thoughtful posts of Sean and MMM recognise) it's this dreadful merry-go-round of regurgitated carping and gossip that is the problem. Round and round the same tired old stuff which has no optimistic solutions and no sense of where we are heading forward. (It's such a true saying that it is a lot easier to wreck and toss than it is to build ) I am aware, however that readers with old grievances and axes to grind will always seek solace in re-reading the similar stories of others whose views broadly co-incide. But a lot of the material should have spun itself out months ago and the diet is about as exciting as last week's fried egg heated up yet again...

      Delete
    4. That Mass would not inspire many young people to enter priesthood etc !!!

      Delete
    5. That Mass depressed me on RTÉ this morning. Some of Maynooths key players singing in the Choir including Bae and Stephanie. Very embarrassed averting of the eyes away from the camera by several of them who gave uncomfortable a new meaning. Where did they dig that Celebrant out of? He is national coordinator of Vocations, I heard it all when I heard that. One Armagh Priest in Co. Derry today declared that the weather was too good outside to preach and so we heard nothing on the subject of vocations, then they wonder why we have very few contemplating it.

      Delete
    6. Looking at that Mass, I'm wondering - were the celebrants eyebrows drawn on with black marker?

      Could anyone's hair (still on the celebrant) really be that black naturally?

      The Gaynooth boys looked positively miserable (except for the one making all the exaggerated facial expressions when singing).

      AND lastly - do we really seriously wonder why we have no true vocations?

      Delete
    7. Those buckos singing were definitely very uncomfortable. Were they there under duress one wonders?

      The whole thing is depressing and worrying. One look at that "national vocations director" would make you want to run a mile! He looks like an extra out of a Father Ted episode.

      What was the deal the boyo in the alb?

      Delete
  9. Rome will never wake up especailly to an isolated backwater such as this.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Being a young fella such as I am whats the "D's" and "H's" all about?????

    ReplyDelete
  11. '... there were two other Dublin priests in the sauna at the time who administered the Last Rites to Father Cosgrove.'

    Probably removed his cock ring as well.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Surely a case of TMI from 14.01

      Delete
  12. Advice seen on a Sedevacantist blog for problems not unlike yours: Starve The Beast!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually it's funny sedevacantism should come up because I've been thinking about its key principle, that the RC church is no longer the church. Of course Catholic orthodoxy indicates that the church is indefectible but the present state of the church suggests it is no longer found in the institution.
      There is a further complication caused by the (broadly) liberal direction of the independent Catholics of which Pat is a part.
      The trouble is that a completely orthodox Catholic bishop would not flinch from teaching that the practice of homosexuality is sinful, and as a result of that would not suffer promiscuous homosexuals in his clergy or seminary.
      A bishop who may be seen by some as rigidly right wing would celebrate the liturgy in a way which some would consider showy or exclusive, but also would prevent harm coming to children from his clergy.
      I don't want to equate liberalism with corruption but a rigidly traditional and orthodox Catholic bishop would not tolerate any of the corruptions mentioned here because they are sins.
      Nit burying babies in unmarked graves.
      Not expecting youths in care to work without wages (in fact that one's a sin crying to heaven for vengeance),
      And so on.

      Delete
    2. 17:01, it was so-called 'orthodox' clergy who permitted the corruption you deplore. The pre-Vatican 11 Church wasn't free of it.

      Delete
    3. @Magna Carta
      I get your point but sorry it's missing my point, that a truly Catholic bishop will not allow corruption, paedophilia, etc. My point was not to idolise the pre-V2 church: actually the sedevacantists see the rot setting in well before the sixties!

      Delete
    4. Er, you said, 19:54, that 'a completely orthodox Catholic bishop would not flinch from teaching that the practice of homosexuality is sinful and as a result of that would not suffer promiscuous homosexuals in his clergy or seminary'. You were equating orthodoxy with moral probity. So my point stands: pre-Vat 11 bishops were, by and large, orthodox (some of them, like sedecavantists, alarmingly so), yet hardly models of moral probity.

      It does not matter whether a bishop is liberal or conservatve: both positions are ideologies rather than indicators of moral probity. Jesus was pretty liberal for his day; his detractors pretty orthodox.

      Delete
    5. The problem with the allegedly orthodox, is that they confuse Tradition, with what Christians are in the habit of saying. Tradition is only valid to the extent that it is true. It is far from established that homosexuality is sinful, though there is little doubt that it is something that it is something that many Christians are in the habit of saying.

      Delete
    6. @Magna Carta
      Yes equating orthodoxy with moral probity is exactly what I am doing. My point is exactly what I am afraid you and the other commenter have missed. An orthodox Catholic bishop whether in 500 or 1960 will look to the Tradition and not depart from it, and because he is doing that will have no truck with homosexuality, paedophilia or corruption.
      This is exactly my point - to tolerate such things is to depart from the Catholic faith. My aim was to link today's post to the sedevacantists' point: a church which turns a blind eye to paedophilia and actively promotes homosexuality cannot be the Catholic church because it has departed from Catholic tradition.

      Delete
    7. 23:30, 'the Sedecavantist point'? The only 'point' that matters is Jesus'. Have you learned nothing?

      Delete
    8. @Magna Carta
      Rude.
      You miss the point of the argument then say it isn't important anyway. Then you're rude to the person you're talking to.
      Obviously you know nothing about history, philosophy, theology, liturgy. Oh shit, I sound like you!

      Delete
    9. What the wotsit are you talkin' 'bout?

      Delete
    10. There you go again. You don't understand the conversation so you rubbish it.

      Once again for the cheap seats:

      Corruption, sexual activity outside of marriage, and crime are in no way part of the Catholic faith and (even allowing that we are sinners) so ignoring or promoting these things is by definition not practicing the faith. Therefore the bishops who ignore or promote these things are outside the faith.

      Magna Carta if you still haven't understood it there's a good book called the Penny Catechism.

      Delete
    11. 06:49, I understand perfectly, but you moved the goal posts when I refuted your point about so-called 'orthodoxy '.

      What is orthodox anyway? Seems to me it's an entirely arbitrary concept, more often defined by certain men (like you) than by God.

      Jesus' own life and teaching illustrates well this arbitraryness : he was the classic 'liberal' of his time; the Pharisees and Saducees the classic 'orthodox '. Neither side got along together, as I recall.

      I am not interested in the man-made categories of liberalism and orthodoxy; I am interested in truth. Objective truth, not your preferred truth.

      As for the 'Penny Catechism ', didn't this 'orthodox ' publication you so admire morally sanction the death penalty? That classic 'liberal', Jesus of Nazareth, would have disagreed. But then, what would he know? You 'orthodox ' know so much better don't you?

      Delete
    12. @Magna Carta.
      Read my original post again. And try to understand what I am saying to you. In orthodox Catholicism, orthodoxy is not defined by me or you but by the twin pillars of Scripture and Tradition.
      It sanctions the death penalty.
      It forbids the practice of homosexuality and paedophilia.
      It believes that the tradition has come down from Jesus.
      I haven't moved the argument anywhere (as it happens the views I am expressing here are not my own but orthodox Catholicism - I myself am an ex-Catholic).
      Now try to remember that I am trying to explain a position to you, and read my comments again and try to understand the position I am explaining.
      You're not listening to what I'm saying because it disagrees with your own opinion and so you're trying to refute it.
      Frankly I'm enjoying this exchange because I can see why commenters here get so hacked off at you for not listening and just shouting over people. As I say, I really don't have a dog in this fight so can enjoy seeing you not get it.

      To recap (because I have a serious point to make but Magna Carta is trying to detract the attention onto himself: the practice of homosexuality, corruption or paedophilia are disapproved in the orthodox traditional Catholic faith so a bishop covering up or actively promoting any of these things is not practicing the Catholic faith. This is one of the proofs used by the sedevacantists (MC did you bother finding out what that word means?) to indicate that the body calling itself the Catholic church is no longer holy, Catholic or apostolic, and so is not the Catholic church.

      Delete
    13. Once again for the cheap seats:

      Corruption, sexual activity outside of marriage, and crime are in no way part of the Catholic faith and (even allowing that we are sinners) so ignoring or promoting these things is by definition not practicing the faith. Therefore the bishops who ignore or promote these things are outside the faith.

      Delete
    14. 18:01, '...orthodoxy is not defined by you or me but by the twin pillars of Scripture and Tradition'. With respect, what does this mean so often in practice, but that certain men (not including you and me) take it upon themselves to define 'orthodoxy'. Orthodoxy is, therefore, man-made in certain respects, with little or no regard for the teaching of Christ.

      I assure you I do understand your point, and I profoundly disagree with it.

      As for the death penalty, Christ certainly didn't sanction it. But your 'Tradition' did, in direct and grave violation of Jesus' command to love enemies.

      Where does Scripture forbid 'the practice of homosexuality'? A strange statement since the ancients had no concept of homosexual orientation, but considered it a deliberate aberration.

      Delete
    15. No, still not getting it.

      Actually it's funny sedevacantism should come up because I've been thinking about its key principle, that the RC church is no longer the church. Of course Catholic orthodoxy indicates that the church is indefectible but the present state of the church suggests it is no longer found in the institution.
      There is a further complication caused by the (broadly) liberal direction of the independent Catholics of which Pat is a part.
      The trouble is that a completely orthodox Catholic bishop would not flinch from teaching that the practice of homosexuality is sinful, and as a result of that would not suffer promiscuous homosexuals in his clergy or seminary.
      A bishop who may be seen by some as rigidly right wing would celebrate the liturgy in a way which some would consider showy or exclusive, but also would prevent harm coming to children from his clergy.
      I don't want to equate liberalism with corruption but a rigidly traditional and orthodox Catholic bishop would not tolerate any of the corruptions mentioned here because they are sins.
      Nit burying babies in unmarked graves.
      Not expecting youths in care to work without wages (in fact that one's a sin crying to heaven for vengeance),
      And so on.

      Delete
    16. Actually it's funny sedevacantism should come up because I've been thinking about its key principle, that the RC church is no longer the church. Of course Catholic orthodoxy indicates that the church is indefectible but the present state of the church suggests it is no longer found in the institution.
      There is a further complication caused by the (broadly) liberal direction of the independent Catholics of which Pat is a part.
      The trouble is that a completely orthodox Catholic bishop would not flinch from teaching that the practice of homosexuality is sinful, and as a result of that would not suffer promiscuous homosexuals in his clergy or seminary.
      A bishop who may be seen by some as rigidly right wing would celebrate the liturgy in a way which some would consider showy or exclusive, but also would prevent harm coming to children from his clergy.
      I don't want to equate liberalism with corruption but a rigidly traditional and orthodox Catholic bishop would not tolerate any of the corruptions mentioned here because they are sins.
      Nit burying babies in unmarked graves.
      Not expecting youths in care to work without wages (in fact that one's a sin crying to heaven for vengeance),
      And so on.

      Delete
    17. Yadda yadda yadda

      Actually it's funny sedevacantism should come up because I've been thinking about its key principle, that the RC church is no longer the church. Of course Catholic orthodoxy indicates that the church is indefectible but the present state of the church suggests it is no longer found in the institution.
      There is a further complication caused by the (broadly) liberal direction of the independent Catholics of which Pat is a part.
      The trouble is that a completely orthodox Catholic bishop would not flinch from teaching that the practice of homosexuality is sinful, and as a result of that would not suffer promiscuous homosexuals in his clergy or seminary.
      A bishop who may be seen by some as rigidly right wing would celebrate the liturgy in a way which some would consider showy or exclusive, but also would prevent harm coming to children from his clergy.
      I don't want to equate liberalism with corruption but a rigidly traditional and orthodox Catholic bishop would not tolerate any of the corruptions mentioned here because they are sins.
      Nit burying babies in unmarked graves.
      Not expecting youths in care to work without wages (in fact that one's a sin crying to heaven for vengeance),
      And so on.

      Delete
    18. 19:59, 20:09 and 20:54, I really don't know what to say to you that could be considered charitable except: are you well? Seriously. I am not being facetious. You seem, er, irrational, since you did not address a single point I raised. Not one.

      You equate 'orthodoxy' with a traditional (or customary) and ridgid moral outlook that stubbornly refuses to develop, despite the growth in human psycho-sexual knowledge and the realisation that former moral certainties may have been grounded on a fallible or insufficient premise. With respect, you don't appear to have matured well, since grown-up, Catholic moral teaching has always evolved in line with greater scientific understanding of ourselves and the world in which we live.

      Truth is at the heart of your dilemma is fear...that unless you have the security of traditional belief, you, and everything else, will simply fall apart.

      Why don't you try growing up instead of retreating to the lunatic (and heretical) pseudo-theological fringe, sedecavantism?

      Idiot.

      Delete
    19. @Magna Carta
      You're rude, but I've worked out your tactic, which is insult people till they give up. So. Once again let's see if at any time soon you'll pay attention:

      Actually it's funny sedevacantism should come up because I've been thinking about its key principle, that the RC church is no longer the church. Of course Catholic orthodoxy indicates that the church is indefectible but the present state of the church suggests it is no longer found in the institution.
      There is a further complication caused by the (broadly) liberal direction of the independent Catholics of which Pat is a part.
      The trouble is that a completely orthodox Catholic bishop would not flinch from teaching that the practice of homosexuality is sinful, and as a result of that would not suffer promiscuous homosexuals in his clergy or seminary.
      A bishop who may be seen by some as rigidly right wing would celebrate the liturgy in a way which some would consider showy or exclusive, but also would prevent harm coming to children from his clergy.
      I don't want to equate liberalism with corruption but a rigidly traditional and orthodox Catholic bishop would not tolerate any of the corruptions mentioned here because they are sins.
      Nit burying babies in unmarked graves.
      Not expecting youths in care to work without wages (in fact that one's a sin crying to heaven for vengeance),
      And so on.

      Delete
    20. 04:21, 'rigidly traditional and orthodox' Catholic bishops have tolerated ALL the things you deplore. Which is, I believe, the point I made in my very first response to you.

      It is futile to teach what is not practised, since no reasonable person would take such a teacher seriously. Don't you recall what Blessed Pope Paul VI said? People listen better to witnesses than to teachers, and to teachers only if they are witnesses.

      You never really had a point, had you?

      Forget sedecavantism: it's a fatuously flamboyant waste of time.

      Delete
    21. Magna dear, they're not orthodox. You're still not listening. Once again :

      Actually it's funny sedevacantism should come up because I've been thinking about its key principle, that the RC church is no longer the church. Of course Catholic orthodoxy indicates that the church is indefectible but the present state of the church suggests it is no longer found in the institution.
      There is a further complication caused by the (broadly) liberal direction of the independent Catholics of which Pat is a part.
      The trouble is that a completely orthodox Catholic bishop would not flinch from teaching that the practice of homosexuality is sinful, and as a result of that would not suffer promiscuous homosexuals in his clergy or seminary.
      A bishop who may be seen by some as rigidly right wing would celebrate the liturgy in a way which some would consider showy or exclusive, but also would prevent harm coming to children from his clergy.
      I don't want to equate liberalism with corruption but a rigidly traditional and orthodox Catholic bishop would not tolerate any of the corruptions mentioned here because they are sins.
      Nit burying babies in unmarked graves.
      Not expecting youths in care to work without wages (in fact that one's a sin crying to heaven for vengeance),
      And so on.

      Delete
    22. Honeybunch, your cognitive ability is seriously impaired, since I didn't say THEY were orthodox. But THEY would probably consider themselves so.

      Yes, I do 'get' it, princess. And I have 'gotten' it since the beginning of our exchange: you're a total arse.

      Ciao!

      (Heavenly Father, please, please send me someone of even low-moderate intelligence to debate with.)

      Delete
    23. And you're rude. But I'm not falling for it.

      Actually it's funny sedevacantism should come up because I've been thinking about its key principle, that the RC church is no longer the church. Of course Catholic orthodoxy indicates that the church is indefectible but the present state of the church suggests it is no longer found in the institution.
      There is a further complication caused by the (broadly) liberal direction of the independent Catholics of which Pat is a part.
      The trouble is that a completely orthodox Catholic bishop would not flinch from teaching that the practice of homosexuality is sinful, and as a result of that would not suffer promiscuous homosexuals in his clergy or seminary.
      A bishop who may be seen by some as rigidly right wing would celebrate the liturgy in a way which some would consider showy or exclusive, but also would prevent harm coming to children from his clergy.
      I don't want to equate liberalism with corruption but a rigidly traditional and orthodox Catholic bishop would not tolerate any of the corruptions mentioned here because they are sins.
      Nit burying babies in unmarked graves.
      Not expecting youths in care to work without wages (in fact that one's a sin crying to heaven for vengeance),
      And so on.

      Delete
  13. I completely agree with what is said in this post but the trouble is it conflates the H problem with the P problem. While it doesn't actually say that H = P it mentions the P problem about a cleric stated to be part of the H set.
    While H + P is of course possible H = P and P = H do not necessarily follow.
    I agree with the poster who commented that H presents less of a problem than the Straight (hereafter S) problem, at least in financial terms. This is a bit short-sighted of the bishops because an H priest is likely to have far more partners and so present more likelihood of scandal.
    The evidence also indicates that much more child abuse is done by those identifying as S than H.
    There is one further problem for the bishops, namely the PB problem. Pat, many a cleric must be fearful of what you know about them!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You hit a lot of nails on the head and I totally agree about the H and P distinctions you make.

      But as I was on Clinliffe I thought I should mention it.

      I do have very bulging files.

      The process I am involved in is a long term one.

      Delete
    2. (Sadie on the sofa) Did everybody else get that?---what Jimmy Riddle posting at, 16.48 was explaining to you all? Some people write more in algebra than in English..

      Delete
    3. Sadie I'm sorry.
      H is homosexuality.
      P is paedophilia.
      S is straight.
      P is Pat Buckley.
      I take it you're not the Sadie who is abbess of Farnborough Abbey?

      Delete
    4. To lovely poster at 19. 43
      Nice to get a reply.
      Well, that clears the fog, thanks.
      Sadie of Farnborough --me!!
      No,no I'm definitely not her. Can't say I ever came across her...

      Delete
  14. Sean Page raises some good points. However, the Irish clerical Church is a club now. It has its own code. It's a job, salary and house for most of them. I have NO doubt that young fresh seminarians enter Seminary with huge idealism. It's soon knocked out of them. It's a refuge for gay young men who don't want to go on the scene or be gay in 'real life'. They do not see it as a pick up joint (but can't believe their luck when they enter seminary and note others of similar disposition). They would have been outcasts, slightly old fashioned, gay, ill-at-ease, students in school. They were probably bullied. Suddenly there's an announcement that Johnny is 'going for the Priesthood'. The metamorphosis begins. Johnny isn't bullied anymore. Guys who wouldn't ordinarily bid him the time of day, now 'respect' him for making the decision. Johnny flourishes in Seminary cus he's allowed to be himself (allowed to be gay acting). I'm not talking about being promiscuous. That comes next. But the real reason that keeps Johnny in the Seminary/Priesthood is that Johnny has made friends, can be gay acting, isn't bullied by his peers outside in the real world anymore. He is actually 'respected'. Then he finds 'adults' now treat him with respect, even ask his advice on matters etc. It tends to have very little to do with God. How many camp and/or old fashioned seminarians do we see interviewed by reporters who say, 'Oh I kept it to myself, but once I told my friends and others, they were very supportive.' It becomes a refuge. It's like a half-way house. The idealism goes after a few weeks when one sees what seminary is really like. i'm not just talking about the gay cabal element. I'm talking about having to be on the watch for deans, acting in a way that appeals to them. Pretending to be modern for some, and conservative for others. It'd give you the head staggers. Pretending to be all for the poor and pastoral when you might just want to stay in bed on a given day. Sean Page you're an intelligent man, however do not be fooled. There is nothing more the clerical club would like better than to see this blog talk about the church going-forward or discuss theological matters. That's playing onto their hands. They do not want the spotlight shone on their secrets or their secret club. They'd love this blog to turn into the Furrow or the Messenger so ex-priests or ex-seminarians could debate their little learning or big learning from their days at college or the coalface. That would be playing into their hands. This blog is ruffling feathers big time. I realise that many comments are nauseating and bitchy etc, but if you could just ignore them for the time being and put your hand to the wheel, you might just get the change required 'going-forward', cus something will have to give with the more that is being exposed. Query: Al Porter the comedian who is now going down a storm in London gave an interview where he said he went to World Youth Day in 2011 (he would have been 17 or 18) and had sex with a young priest. This wasn't followed up. Al Porter is from Dublin.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence... without the makeup.

      Delete
  15. 17.20. Thank You. Insightful and worth reading

    ReplyDelete
  16. I had a look at that Mass on the RTE player . It was interesting to see at least two of Maynooth's finest Brendan Marshall and Stephen Wilson in the choir. I recognised the organist as a former Dominican student who left before ordination.

    ReplyDelete
  17. So Maynooth send a seminarian who may or may not have been caught in bed with another seminarian and was plastered all over the media to a Vocations Sunday mass which was broadcast by RTE? Talk about turkies voting for Christmas!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To poster 19.45

      To get the plural of a word ending in "y", it is very often correct to change the "y" into "ies". . Examples would be "dairy, dairies" and "fairy, fairies"
      However, there are a number of exceptions to that rule.. The correct plural of "turkey" is "turkeys" (Other plurals in that category would be "donkeys" and "monkeys")

      Delete
    2. Poor Conan on the dole!

      Delete
    3. 19:45 My best friend Conan DID catch Brendan and Ronan in bed.

      Delete
    4. Conan works in a gay bar now. He is NOT on the dole Pat!

      Delete
    5. Could the incessant poster @20:20 and elsewhere please, for the love of God, master the art of the full stop? Its constant absence in these purported grammatical corrections is a source of constant vexation.

      Delete
    6. Who is Ronan? We've heard the names Gorgeous, Puck, Gannon, Marshall et al on here. I don't think I've come across a Ronan yet?

      Delete
    7. @19:45, does one need to keep reminding views that no one was actually caught in bed with another seminarian? The surmising of someone constitutionally disposed to see heresy and sin at every corner, does not make for a good case.

      I am also bored at the constant innuendo against a man (the other one mentioned above who was not alleged to have been "caught in bed") who as far as I can see has committed no "sin against chastity" while in the seminary. So what is the case against him exactly? That someone doesn't like his manner? Too bad.

      One might have thought +Pat would have had a stronger moral compass on this point, but apparently it has gone wonky. Whereas one might have expected +Pat to have taken a stance against what is clearly homophobia in this particular case, what we find is that +Pat is so desperate to be accepted as a sort of "I'm not your typical gay" type, that all other considerations fade.

      Delete
    8. Nonsense.

      I just happen to think gays are bound by the same rules and morals as straights.

      In other words I dont play the "pink card".

      Delete
    9. @20:51 Nonsense indeed. For instance here were always high camp seminarians in Maynooth. There was one who is ordained in the west and has a title now in his diocese (as a priest) and has the decency to travel in his car to cruise in another diocese. Funny how he always needs to go walking in a woods/park in a county that has nothing to recommend it scenery wise. odd that the same woods is on squirt.org as a cruising spot. Also odd he doesn't wear his collar

      Delete
    10. @20:31, seeing someone (on their own) looking disheveled is not the same as catching two people in bed having sex. Now when we combine that someone given to rants about "Sodomites", are we not entitled to just a little bit of a doubt? Perhaps the seminary has deprived you of common sense? It happens.

      Delete
    11. Sorry +Pat, your comment is nonsense. You persistently permit publication of comments about seminarians against whom no allegation of wrongdoing has been made - the only 'crime' is that they are either gay or perceived to be. We are not talking here of Gorgeous etc. When you make a case against them, then we can take your purported moral stance seriously. Until that happens, you are complicit in indulging homophobia, and frankly one might have expected more leadership from you. It is hard to take your criticism of DM seriously when the lack of leadership he displays is abundantly evident in your own ministry.

      Delete
    12. @21:03, help me out. Please explain the relevance of you using squirt.org to find cruising places where you see priests, and how that has any connection to vilification of a seminarian whose only 'crime' appears to be that he is camp? Has he been misbehaving sexually while a seminarian? If not, what exactly is your point?

      Delete
    13. Who is Ronan?

      Delete
    14. @21:11 Sorry I don't know who or what seminarian you are talking about. I was just saying there were always camp seminarians and mentioning it reminded me of the current priest from the west who had an important job but cruises elsewhere. I don't know who YOU are referring to. Sorry for confusion

      Delete
    15. Pat does not need to prove anything. Conan was kicked out because of Ronan and Brendan. A man was kicked out of seminary because of a concern he had about them. It has nothing to do with homophobia and everything to do with justice. They are still in fromation and Conan is not. That is all the proof Pat needs!!!

      Delete
    16. I still feel, rightly or wrongly, that Conan suffered a big injustice ???

      Delete
    17. Yes he did suffer injustice. I think you should revist the situation +Pat.

      Delete
    18. @21:46, this is entirely inaccurate, +Pat does indeed have a grave responsibility to act fairly and with justice, and that involves making or posting statements with are (1) true and accurate and (2) fair to the individuals involved. Or are you suggesting that it is legitimate to post comments above individuals for no other reason other than that they are gay? Let's not forget, that in a number of cases here we are not dealing with allegations of sexual misconduct in seminary. We are dealing only with men who happen to be gay in orientation +Pat is failing in this regard, however right he might be about other issues. Having suffered unfairly himself, one might think he should know better.

      I agree that Conan has suffered a grave injustice. However, he very definitely did not catch two seminarians in bed, and the real reason he left the seminary was that the circumstances which arose provided the seminary authorities with a golden opportunity to get rid of a seminarian who they considered to be hyper-orthodox. After all, that is what they specified as a key reason.

      Delete
    19. It would be grateful if ALL THREE seminarians issued their side of the Maynooth saga???

      Delete
    20. 22:00 - it astonishes me the people that suddenly come out the woodwork defending 'certain' seminarians. The story is not 'inaccurate' Conan knew what was going on in there and he went in and caught them. This story was in the news last year!!!

      Delete
    21. @Pat and @22:00 (1) it was mentioned here before that the Brendan guy was sent off on retreat down the country before he returned to formation. Did his bishop send him there because he looked disheveled when he opened a door?
      (2) Who is Ronan? I don't think his name was mentioned before?
      (3) Pat can you do an update blog on Maynooth during the week. Let us know who the President is now or who is acting etc. If there are any changes on staff etc and an update on the seminarians. If your stuck for info, I'm sure @22.00 will be able to help you, he seems to be 'knowledgeable'

      Delete
    22. It would be great +Pat, but in reality it won't happen. No one wants to subject their private lives to that level of scrutiny in the public domain. And the question is, why should they?

      Take the incident we are discussing, and let's say the slightly odd circumstances did point to a situation where two guys 'sinned against chastity'. Perhaps sin did occur. I don't know - neither does anyone else for that matter. That is the precise reason they were not expelled and that it was possible that it was passed off as a 'misunderstanding'. If they have been caught in bed, they would be out of seminary.

      But are these two guys part of a cabal? Are they bullying anyone else? Did they orchestrate a campaign to get Conan removed? They did none of those things, at least as far as I am aware. So given all of that, and let's say they did sin, why can we not just assume that they confessed it and did not repeat it? It is just or reasonable that people who make a mistake must be publicly shamed? I agree there should be no sexual activity for seminarians, but we cannot seize upon one failure and compare it to a Gorgeous situation.

      But the fact remains is, perhaps nothing happened. The ultra orthodox do tend to have fevered imaginations...

      Just one other point to make very clear - before all of this arose, it was not widely considered in the seminary that these two guys were gay (if indeed they are gay - and frankly I don't care one way or the other, it is not my business) and certainly no one suspected any type of relationship.

      And to reiterate one other silly point that keeps getting repeated - Conan is definitely not working in a gay bar in London (or anywhere else!).

      Delete
    23. @22:13, I have no vested interest in defending people for the sake of it. But prejudice is being pandered to here, and I don't like it.

      There are seminarians who are gay, always have been, always will be. +Pat is one such example. I have no issue with it.

      But we are seeing nasty vicious comments against those men because they are being deemed camp or gay. No accusation is made that they have done anything wrong. I am not going to name their names here as others have done, but it should be obvious who I am referring to. How can any Christian justify that?

      There is a second category and that is the whole 'two seminarians caught in bed' story. The whole thing is highly questionable. Whatever story you read saying they were caught in bed and that Conan walked in and saw it, is irrefutably incorrect. There were indeed suspicious circumstances and perhaps something was going on. I don't know but neither do you or anyone else. It was not known that there was any such thing between them until those allegations were made, they weren't part of a cabal etc etc etc. So again, as Christians, we either say these men made a mistake, let's move on since we have no evidence of persistent repetition or else we extend the benefit of the doubt. Persistent vilification of them is unfair and uncalled for.

      In the third category, we have Gorgeous etc. That is where +Pat is correct.

      Delete
    24. It is not an unusual act for seminarians to go on retreat before returning after the summer break. This blog needs to move on at this point. The televised mass did vocations justice. Write something positive about them for once +Pat ! You don't have to be awkward all your days

      Delete
    25. @22:29 you need to read the other post posted at 22:29 below this. It bombs your thesis completely out of the water. It's interesting that you're standing up for some current seminarians who were caught and not standing up for gorgeous. read the post two down with the quote from the Irish Times and answer the question. Why didn't they sue?

      Delete
    26. 22:20 :They got a man kicked out of seminary!!! It is not 'one failure'. This man lost his vocation because of them two vicious individuals. Yes! they are a part of the gay cabal. Have you not seen 'bae' e.g (brendan marshall) in pictures with Sean Jones?

      'It is not widely considered in the seminary that these two guys were gay' - are you joking 22:20?

      Delete
    27. @22:28, I would need more than a half-baked report from the Irish Times to bomb what I have seen and heard first hand out of the water...

      As I understand it, you are seriously suggesting that this one off situation (if such occurred) is analogous to the Gorgeous situation. With respect, that is clearly ridiculous.

      If your point is that I have some agenda other than challenging +Pat on the clear unfairness of his approach, then you are mistaken. As a Christian, I am less interested in good copy and a juicy story and pandering to mob mentality prejudice, and more interested in adding some level of fairness to a discussion which has become frankly hysterical.

      Delete
    28. 22:29 - one question? Would your logic not apply to Gorgeous like it does to Brendan Marshall and Ronan Sheehan? Did you see him in bed with anyone?

      Delete
    29. @22:41, please explain how B and R acted to get C kicked out of seminary? Fill us in, with specific details - not random sweeping statements - I mean fill all the readers in with what happened, who they conspired with, what actions they took, how they conspired to have a man expelled etc.

      Of course he should not have been expelled, but you fail to see that the principal reason for the expulsion was that the man in question was too conservative. 'Twas ever thus. And highly unjust. But you do yourself no favours by vilifying two men who MIGHT have made mistake.

      There are 60 men in the seminary, if 'Bae' didn't know Sean Jones it would be rather unusual.

      Delete
    30. 22:41 Why don't you challenge Brendan face to face? Of course you wouldn't dare! Go to bed and shut your keyboard for the evening.

      Delete
    31. 22:55 - He is in a picture with Sean Jones and he is called his 'bae' which means boyfriend. It seems they did not just know each other.

      Delete
    32. @22:51, let me be clear on the point I am making. What we have with this situation is POSSIBLY a one off situation. If your point is that it is fair, reasonable and just to compare that to the Gorgeous shenanigans, then our conceptions of fairness and justice are world's apart.

      The other point I am making, and in fact this is the principal point, is that in addition to this situation, these comments name other men - not those above, or Gorgeous, or Puck etc - against whom no allegation of wrongdoing whilst in the seminary has ever been made, and who are targeted for hateful comments for no reason other than that they are gay or perceived to be so.

      This is entirely unacceptable and no amount of prurient interest in the goings on of seminary life can justify it.

      Delete
    33. 23:01 you seem certain it was a one off situation? Even if it was a one off sitaution Conan kicked out! It has nothing to do with sexuality but it does have everything to do with behaviour. Their behaviour is not acceptable and they both must leave.

      Delete
    34. Bae has more than one meaning and can mean a really significant other such as best friend.
      All I can say, girls, is you Maynooth queens sure kniw how to bitch!

      Delete
    35. In fairness - and I am a mere onlooker to this debate - "bae" or "bai" is regularly used by young males, in country areas of the North, to refer to their buddies.

      It's a form of "boy".

      Here's a few examples: "your aul' bae" = "yer Da".

      "Bout ye bai?" = "how's it going mate?".

      "Thon aul bae" = "a male senior citizen".

      There is absolutely no necessarily "romantic" connotation to that term.

      Delete
    36. This well-worn is cliché that bitchiness is solely a feminine characteristic and the seminarians being described as "girls" as a put down is totally unwarranted and unacceptable.
      If you have time, please check through the blog over Fri-Sat for some excellent posts and discussion on exactly this point.

      Delete
  18. Spare a thought for the foreign students and/or workers in Dublin (usually professionals) who are quite religious and goodlooking and are taken to tea/coffee/drink by middle aged Dublin priests who dress in 'casual clothes' when they go to meet them (and think they're on dates).

    ReplyDelete
  19. @Pat you have succeeded in banishing gay and promiscuous seminarians from social media/facebook where they flirted and pranced. That in itself is to be commended. Well done.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am astonished that @20:44 was following those social media accounts with such avid interest.....makes on wonder :-)

      Delete
    2. The other week I refreshed my grindr as I went past Oscott, just to see.
      Nithing! Can you believeit?

      Delete
  20. @22:00
    Why havent the sued the papers? You're all saying who they are. Papers are very slow to publish anything that points the finger at anyone (even by using the term 'A')
    This featured in The Irish Times on August 9th last year:
    Meanwhile, a seminarian allegedly at the centre of a case which led to the dismissal of a peer from Maynooth in May claimed it was based on “a misunderstanding” by the expelled man.
    Seminarian “A” was called before the authorities as a result of complaints by two colleagues who alleged he had bullied and talked about them.
    Shortly before, “A” claimed he called to one of the complainant’s rooms, knocked on the door and entered to find both complainants in bed having sex.
    “A” was unsure what to do. He discussed it with another seminarian and both decided it was best not to report it to college authorities. Word spread. An anonymous letter was sent to the bishop of one of the two men in bed, detailing the incident. “A” was accused by one of the men of sending the anonymous letter to his bishop, which “A” insisted he had not done.
    This man reported “A” to college authorities for bullying, telling lies and writing anonymous letters about him.
    At a hearing with college authorities “A” said he had found his accuser having sex with another seminarian and that had given rise to the complaints.
    Dismissed from college
    He was told by the authorities that even if he had not been telling lies and writing anonymous letters, he was in trouble anyhow as he should have reported the men to college authorities after he found them in bed. He was dismissed from the college.
    One of the men “A” claimed to have found in bed with another said “this allegation was unsubstantiated after an investigation was held by seminary authorities and I believe it was based on a misunderstanding”.
    He described it as “a false allegation that has brought much distress to me and my family”.
    He did so in a letter to former Catholic priest bishop Pat Buckley who published it on his blog.

    ReplyDelete
  21. @22:29, probably because they do not have the financial resources to do so and probably also because they know that by taking a defamation action it will give oxygen to the story. You will note that the Irish Times did not publish their names - you might want to reflect on why that is.

    I am well aware of what was reported. I am telling you categorically that this account of events is inaccurate. The two were not caught in bed. It is for that simple reason that the Maynooth authorities were able to justify keeping them on in the college.

    What happened to Conan was highly unfair, there is no doubt. But the reason for his hesitancy in reporting, as I understand it, was due to the fact that he was unsure of the implication of the situation he witnessed, hence he sought counsel. Someone else then took it upon themselves, after a series of Chinese whispers, to write the letter.

    Perhaps something did take place. The point I am making is that even if we had a situation of sin, it is not remotely comparable to the Gorgeous situation, and I find the constant regurgitation on this blog of this event to be distasteful and lacking in any type of Christian charity.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 22:44 - Gorgeous was also not named in the news paper. What is your point?

      Delete
    2. Why did Conan deserve expulsion for being guilty of a "misunderstanding"?

      Delete
    3. @22:57, you believed the rape allegation story? Do you believe everything that is printed in a newspaper? The rape allegation sounded preposterous and highly unbelievable. Made for good sales though. Perhaps a more piercing analysis of what you read @22:57?

      Delete
    4. The point I am making was set out in the final paragraph. I set it out again for your benefit:

      "The point I am making is that even if we had a situation of sin, it is not remotely comparable to the Gorgeous situation, and I find the constant regurgitation on this blog of this event to be distasteful and lacking in any type of Christian charity."

      Delete
    5. Pat, you are correct. Do you want the truth? They turned the situation around on Conan. Conan hesitated because Ronan was his best friend and he gave him the opportunity to confess. Once they knew Conan knew they took the opportunity and turned on Conan telling the staff he was making up stories. Conan was challanged and then it was 2 vs 1 and Conan lost. Simples.

      Delete
    6. +Pat, he didn't deserve expulsion. This is Maynooth, the place is a disaster. He was expelled for sending the anonymous letter (apparently he was not the author, but I don't know - I don't know who wrote it) and for being too rigid.

      Conan is a decent guy if a little overly conservative. He should definitely still be there.

      But the real story here is the Maynooth authorities - not the two guys who are being vilified for what, assuming it all happened, was an error of judgement so far as we know.

      You asked why don't we hear from all three of them? I am saying that we have no right to intrude into this story in the public domain - I think it is uncharitable in the absence of finding out that is is habitual behaviour, that they are part of a cabal etc.

      So I don't think that exposing them to the same treatment as Gorgeous etc by printing what you have printed today and other days is justifiable.

      Delete
    7. 22:44 you seem to pointing the finger at Gorgeous while taking about the uncharitable behaviour towards Marshall and Sheehan. They deserve to be equally exposed if not more so and they will be. The story is not over just you wait and see!!!

      Delete
    8. @23:33, I can see you are breathless with excitement at the prospect of another instalment of Maynooth The Saga. But perhaps you might, just for 30 seconds, switch your brain into gear and come back to the readers with your rationale as to why the Gorgeous situation is the same as the Disheveled Seminarian situation?

      To recap: please explain why a one off event which is contested is exactly the same as someone repeat offending over an extended period of time? Looking forward to your incisive insights.

      Delete
    9. I am not here to defend any of them as I find them all personally repugnant. The point stands, who ever it is that is defending marshall and sheehan keeps comparing it to gorgeous. You keep saying it was a 'once off' like that makes it ok. It should not have happend therefore you should do the right thing and leave. Conan will be vindicated....

      Delete
  22. @22:44 your interpretation of the Laws of Libel are similar to that of a corner boy or a seminarian with a little learning. Once it can be deciphered who the story is referring to, then that is enough. So, why didn't they sue or why don't they sue?

    ReplyDelete
  23. @23:01, as you seem to be a little slow on the uptake, I shall copy paste what I have already written:

    "probably because they do not have the financial resources to do so and probably also because they know that by taking a defamation action it will give oxygen to the story."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm sure some Silverdaddy could be found to fund a defamation case for them. I know I would do anything I could to defend my name, wouldn't you in the case of defamation?

      Delete
    2. @23:49, you are confusing Gorgeous (a Silverdaddy fan) and the situation currently under discussion (where Silverdaddies are irrelevant).

      Delete
  24. Pat, do you not find it strange that someone is coming to the defence of Brendan Marshall and Ronan Sheehan all of a sudden? I think we can safely assume it is them writing. They are so shameless!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @23:29, do you believe that the moon landings were a fake, that the 9/11 attacks were the work of Mossad and that the earth is flat? Perhaps you are Italian, they love a good conspiracy theory? Nothing like a conspiracy theory to deflect a bit of hard thinking.

      Delete
    2. If it was them which is highly probable, they made a damn good job all evening defending their actions. Marshall looked one of the most uncomfortable on screen at Mass on RTÉ this morning, I wonder was he afraid that he'd get recognised by some one. As for the Celebrant in that dyed hair and eyebrows carry on, words fail me.

      Delete
    3. I think thier defensiveness points to insurmountable guilt

      Delete
    4. I can confirm that it is not them. This whole topic is a distraction from the main point I had for +Pat, which is this:

      Are you going to continue to publish negative comments about seminarians who are camp or gay or perceived to be gay, but about whom no allegations of sexual impropriety whilst in seminary have been made?

      To get back to my original point, I consider the continued permission granted to commentators to make these sort of offensive comments to be encouraging homophobia. There is simply no justification for it.

      Delete
    5. @23:46, you make a strong case for the abolition of juries and the necessity of confining complex matters to qualified judges.

      Delete
    6. And what about the gays of Maynooth bullying heterosexual seminarians out of the seminary?

      Delete
    7. Absolutely agree with you, it is entirely unacceptable.

      So is your point that those you have allowed to be named guilty of bullying heterosexual seminarians out of seminary?

      Are you saying that you have not allowed them to be named randomly and without looking extensively into their conduct?

      I have no problem at all with real issues being raised. I do have a problem with name being bandied around and not tied to any specific issue.

      Delete
    8. 23:51

      It is funny you say that because Conan can confirm it is them. How can you confirm it was NOT them please enlighten us?

      Delete
    9. Homophobia you are using as a total smokescreen, diversion tactic and a complete distraction. Time for your bed now as you have morning prayer and lectures tomorrow. Well done on your defensiveness all evening, it's commendable but we are not taken in by it for one second. Pour yourself another gin and wish all the other Sems the best from us,

      Delete
    10. @23:59, try to keep up. The comment was in reference to the first line of comment 23:46.

      @00:00, try to engage with some of the arguments about what is right and proper for Christians. If all you can offer is an attempt at a withering putdown (you failed, it lacks wit), best keep yourself out of the game.

      Delete
    11. I don't think any of it is a "game" as you refer to it. Perhaps it's all just a big joke to you, do you not realise how pathetic you or your arguments sound! Don't defend the indefensible, that is silly, now put your keyboard away Brendan and Ronan.

      Delete
    12. @00:12, I rather think you lack the ability to muster an argument and while it is entertaining on occasion to interact with haranguing fishwives, my target audience is the brighter readers of the blog rather than yourself.

      Delete
    13. If a seminarian is "camp" then there are serious issues of maturity and he should take time out.

      Both "gay" and "straight" seminarians are required to be chaste for three years before their admission to study for the priesthood.

      The virtue of chastity is required from all Christians. Promiscuity is explicitly condemned by God in His Word.

      Sexually active seminarians must be expelled from seminary. They will give grave scandal as priests. This has happened already too often (Rory Coyle being one example).

      It is not homophobia to expect men in formation for the priesthood to avoid Grindr, Squirt, Silver Daddies, etc., etc.

      Promiscuous gay sexual activity is incompatible with Priesthood. A system that tolerates such behaviour has completely lost the plot. It is no longer fit for purpose.

      Which indeed raises the staff of Gaynooth and it's formation programme.

      Delete
  25. @20.32's statement that there is no reason to believe more tham 2% of Irish priests are gay, has provided me with the best laugh I've had so far this year.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The vast majority of current young priests and seminarians are gay.

      Most of them are sexually active.

      Delete
    2. I agree that the majority of seminarians are gay. I do not think it is accurate that most of them are sexually active, though certainly some of them are. As has always been the case. There are plenty of decent seminarians who are gay and who are spiritual, striving to be good Christians.

      Sadly, the Church provides no proper teaching on how to be gay and Christian. This often results in an inner conflict with the consequence that men who would otherwise be good priests, acting out inappropriately.

      Delete
    3. 00.01 I think that is a really good point. If Christian churches were more accepting of gay men there would probably be less problems. Where I used to work, there were many gay men, but there was no gay cabal and we all got on. Everyone just accepted them.

      Delete
    4. Correct term would be "fewer problems"

      Delete
    5. Despite my encouragement yesterday, it is disappointing to see that @12:18 has yet to master the art of the full stop.

      Delete
    6. The gentleman is correct....apologies! My friend's daughter has OCD and she has just got a job as a proof reader, which suits her personality.

      Delete
  26. What a squalid and offensive blog! yuck...........

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yer closeted, aren't y'?

      Delete
    2. Obviously because it doesn't ignore reality.

      Delete
    3. And this 'reality ' is...?

      Delete
  27. @Pat Why has this Ronan Sheehan guy never had his face plastered all over the blog? Never seen a pic of him here. The other protagonists are always on. How in 2017 can someone face not be on the internet? These three seminarians, Brendan, Ronan and Conan have caused quite a sensation. And we're discussing it here cus someone was shown in a choir for a few seconds today. The story certainly hasn't gone away

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well it hasn't but the tactics are a disaster. Let me tell you why. On these pages, because of the lack of a filter, we are regularly treated to false information. Because of the persistent publication of false information, innuendo and unfair coverage, no one is taking it seriously - the general response of those reported on nowadays is a shrug. Bishops have zero interest and will absolutely continue to ignore the stuff published because it has been handled so badly. That is why ordinations will go ahead. The other reason is that Bishops will not, rightly or wrongly, allow themselves to be bullied into making decisions on the basis of sensationalist reporting.

      So to come back to the excellent points made earlier today by Sean Page and MMM, the story has actually run its course. Own goals have been scored and there will be no changes. No matter how many repetitive hysterical rants are issued on these pages.

      Delete
  28. Given what I've learnt about seminarians and Maynooth since last summer, I just couldn't contribute to the collection at Mass this morning to support the formation of students for the priesthood.

    ReplyDelete
  29. What's the craic with the camp lad in the choir with the ludicrously exaggerated facial expressions? Please tell me he's not a seminarian.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think you'll find that's the infamous Stephanie. And yes, he is a seminarian...still.

      Another Armagh disaster waiting to happen. But he, like the Armagh deacon, is loved and protected by the seminary council, so he's sailing through Maynooth.

      Delete
    2. Ah yes, the trolly dolly. She and her trolly have also disappeared of social meeja LOL

      Delete
  30. The simple reality is that Maynooth seminary council cannot tollerate heterosexual men. The seminary council took the whole situation very personal so this begs the question, What are they up to? How is that the two men who took it upon themselves to report what Conan saw are both gone. They would have got kicked out too only one left in disgust and the other was taking time out at the end of the year and Conan got the road but the culprits remain prancing around like they own the place because they have full knowledge Mullaney and co are behind them. Its a one sided affair. Homosexuals are protected at all costs.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Was it a first year student who left in disgust?

      Delete
  31. 06:49, I understand perfectly, but you moved the goal posts when I refuted your point about so-called 'orthodoxy'. What is orthodox anyway? Seems to me it's an entirely arbitrary concept, more often defined by certain men (like you) rather than by God. Jesus' own life and teaching illuminates well this arbitraryness: he was the 'liberal' of his time; the Pharisees and Saducees the 'orthodox' Neither side got along together, as I recall.

    I am not interested in the man-made ideologies of liberalism and orthodoxy: I am interested in truth: objective truth, not your preferred truth.

    As for the 'Penny Catechism', isn't this the 'orthodox' publication that morally sanctioned the death penalty? That annoying 'liberal', Jesus of Nazareth, would have disagreed. But then, what the heck would he know? You 'orthodox' know much better, of course.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, still not listening.

      Actually it's funny sedevacantism should come up because I've been thinking about its key principle, that the RC church is no longer the church. Of course Catholic orthodoxy indicates that the church is indefectible but the present state of the church suggests it is no longer found in the institution.
      There is a further complication caused by the (broadly) liberal direction of the independent Catholics of which Pat is a part.
      The trouble is that a completely orthodox Catholic bishop would not flinch from teaching that the practice of homosexuality is sinful, and as a result of that would not suffer promiscuous homosexuals in his clergy or seminary.
      A bishop who may be seen by some as rigidly right wing would celebrate the liturgy in a way which some would consider showy or exclusive, but also would prevent harm coming to children from his clergy.
      I don't want to equate liberalism with corruption but a rigidly traditional and orthodox Catholic bishop would not tolerate any of the corruptions mentioned here because they are sins.
      Nit burying babies in unmarked graves.
      Not expecting youths in care to work without wages (in fact that one's a sin crying to heaven for vengeance),
      And so on.

      Delete
  32. Is it true the 8 priests committed suicide last year?

    ReplyDelete
  33. Haven't we all got vocations to our Christian faith by reason of our baptism.
    Ordained priests will be a thing of the past within years.
    You, me and everyone else can live out faith.

    ReplyDelete
  34. 06:49, did you not realise that "truth" is what aul Maggie decides it to be? And, as for God, well Mags Carter tells Him what to think and do! Maggie Carter is her very own "magisterium" and she - and she alone - gets to decide what Scriptures to agree with - and which Scriptures to shred. She has been granted by her "god" full and total knowledge of everything. She alone is the sole arbitrator and decider of Orthodoxy. Her god talks to her and always agrees with her - indeed, seeks her advice on all matters. So don't waste your batteries, 06:49! :-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 17:19, you are wiser than you think: 'She has been granted by her "god" full and total knowledge of everything.' (Though you do exaggerate a little: I don't know EVERYTHING.)

      Delete
    2. Tbh I've been one of Magna Carta's defenders on here but no longer. His ad hominem argument against my point about sedevacantism has detracted from a serious point I had to make. He is off pontificating and doesn't even understand my point.
      As it happens I'm not even a Catholic, I'm a promiscuous gay and practice witchcraft (no really) but Magna was so intent on attacking me personally, assuming I hold the position I described, and yet he hadn't even read my original comment.
      I will not come to Magna's defence again - his comments are merely to ridicule other people's. He is also intent on insulting others' intelligence while being apparently incapable of understanding things they say.
      I will not drop my replies to his comments - although I may just repeat my original comment. Who know, one day he may read it - because I have something to say and Magna's insults will not deflect me from it.

      Once again for the cheap seats:

      Corruption, sexual activity outside of marriage, and crime are in no way part of the Catholic faith and (even allowing that we are sinners) so ignoring or promoting these things is by definition not practicing the faith. Therefore the bishops who ignore or promote these things are outside the faith.

      Delete
    3. 18:18, lighten up. You'll be more fun (and pleasanter company) if you do.

      Delete
    4. Back to your personal insults when you find you can't shout someone down.
      Now here's the point you've missed:
      Actually it's funny sedevacantism should come up because I've been thinking about its key principle, that the RC church is no longer the church. Of course Catholic orthodoxy indicates that the church is indefectible but the present state of the church suggests it is no longer found in the institution.
      There is a further complication caused by the (broadly) liberal direction of the independent Catholics of which Pat is a part.
      The trouble is that a completely orthodox Catholic bishop would not flinch from teaching that the practice of homosexuality is sinful, and as a result of that would not suffer promiscuous homosexuals in his clergy or seminary.
      A bishop who may be seen by some as rigidly right wing would celebrate the liturgy in a way which some would consider showy or exclusive, but also would prevent harm coming to children from his clergy.
      I don't want to equate liberalism with corruption but a rigidly traditional and orthodox Catholic bishop would not tolerate any of the corruptions mentioned here because they are sins.
      Nit burying babies in unmarked graves.
      Not expecting youths in care to work without wages (in fact that one's a sin crying to heaven for vengeance),
      And so on.

      Delete
    5. 21:44, I love you. I really do. Since you're as stubborn and determined as I am.

      Delete
    6. Well perhaps if I say it again you might notice what I'm saying:

      Actually it's funny sedevacantism should come up because I've been thinking about its key principle, that the RC church is no longer the church. Of course Catholic orthodoxy indicates that the church is indefectible but the present state of the church suggests it is no longer found in the institution.
      There is a further complication caused by the (broadly) liberal direction of the independent Catholics of which Pat is a part.
      The trouble is that a completely orthodox Catholic bishop would not flinch from teaching that the practice of homosexuality is sinful, and as a result of that would not suffer promiscuous homosexuals in his clergy or seminary.
      A bishop who may be seen by some as rigidly right wing would celebrate the liturgy in a way which some would consider showy or exclusive, but also would prevent harm coming to children from his clergy.
      I don't want to equate liberalism with corruption but a rigidly traditional and orthodox Catholic bishop would not tolerate any of the corruptions mentioned here because they are sins.
      Nit burying babies in unmarked graves.
      Not expecting youths in care to work without wages (in fact that one's a sin crying to heaven for vengeance),
      And so on.

      Delete
  35. @Pat I tuned into Mass on RTE yesterday but something must have happened my telly. There was an episode from Fawcetts Circus instead. There was a ring master with dyed hair and dyed eyebrows and a contortionist singing.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Pat its time for a new Maynooth blog inform us whats happening now

    ReplyDelete
  37. Mass on RTE

    My vote goes for the young SMALL kid three from the right at the back, what is his NAME?

    ReplyDelete
  38. Sean Hickey in the blue suit who read the first reading is a first year seminarian from Ossory

    ReplyDelete
  39. Nice picture of the boys
    https://www.flickr.com/photos/irishcatholicbishops/33685247894/in/album-72157680460079503/lightbox/

    ReplyDelete
  40. That Mass on RTE is precisely the type of banal, cringeworthy liturgy that blights parish after parish up and down the land. Would put anyone off going to Mass. For the Vatican 2 Valeries who are aghast at the young turning to Tradition, have a butchers at this to understand why. And the music...my ears are bleeding, and that's before we even dissect the inanities of the language of the little ditties being caterwauled. I love how they cut away during the consecration so there would be no complaints - no one bothered themselves to kneel like an old-fashioned Tridentine Travis I assume.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Those ditties were composed by Columba McCann OSB who was originally Fr John McCann, Dublin diocese. He knew his way around friendly bars in Dublin, but sure I suppose there's nothing wrong with priests being in friendly bars. The music (not all of it was his) was about as entertaining as Dustin's entry in the Eurovision. The whole thing looked like cabaret in the George on Sundays. Its the camera men I feel sorry for, having to give up their Sundays to film screaming Maires and keep a straight face.

      Delete
    2. Amen Tridentine Travis! Preach it my brother!

      Delete
    3. Don't be nasty. I see the orders of sisters wheeled out their youngest members for the occasion, lol

      Delete
    4. It's the high camp flowing vestments I can't take - apart from anything else, it makes one fret that the sacerdotal wearer is likely to burst into liturgical dance, Spirit of Vatican 2 Styleeee, at any given moment. A masculine fiddleback would solve all that. I think it is fair to say that 'the people' are well and truly over Vatican 2 Valerie and her bag of liturgical tricks.

      Delete
  41. Who was the deacon? He didn't get to do much.

    ReplyDelete
  42. 'Sexually active gay priests seem to be more favoured that celibate priests...'

    Well, that figures, who would want a celibate four-eyed gawk.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That is a disgusting--if sadly predictable--response.

      Delete
    2. ***clutches pearls***

      Delete
    3. I'm 'a celibate four-eyed gawk'!

      Charming.

      Delete
  43. The reaction from the authorities in Maynooth to what poor Conan witnessed was extremely violent and intolerant.
    Their aim was to quickly silence the voice of truth which was disturbing and uprooting a stinking rot in a corrupt decaying institution.

    ReplyDelete